When using the invoke duplicity channel divinity feature, a trickery domain cleric can "cast spells as though you were in the illusion's space." If a trickery domain cleric were to somehow acquire the booming blade or green flame blade cantrips, through a multi-class or feat, it would follow that they could cast the spell from the position of the duplicate. The description of the feature, though, does not explicitly say the duplicate can make a melee attack. So is it the case that these spells could be cast via the duplicate but not completed with the necessary melee attack roll with a "brandished" weapon, RAW? On the other hand, to use either of those two cantrips is to take the "cast a spell" action which includes a melee attack roll as part of the casting. Spells like Inflict Wounds also require a melee attack roll as part of the spell's casting and could be done from the duplicate's position since RAW allow, though in that case the cleric has to touch the target. Has anyone ruled on the invoke duplicity feature description in relation to these two cantrips? I'm leaning towards allowing the cantrips to be cast since they do fall under the "cast a spell" action and don't require concentration (which use of the feature does require), though because the duplicate would hold an illusory "brandished" weapon, I'm not sure if this gives the feature too much power (putting it more in line with the Echo Knight's duplicate, which is a much more powerful feature). Thanks! T
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space means most spell should take effect from this location but if one include you making a weapon attack, the attack would have no effect since the illusion is intangible.
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
The language on Invoke Duplicity says
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Ranged attack spells from the duplicate's space would be fine, provided that you still have line of sight to the target etc from your own space. So you can't use the duplicate to cast Guiding Bolt around a corner, or that kind of thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
The language on Invoke Duplicity says
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Ranged attack spells from the duplicate's space would be fine, provided that you still have line of sight to the target etc from your own space. So you can't use the duplicate to cast Guiding Bolt around a corner, or that kind of thing
Is your description from 5e PHB? In the PHB I have, the feature requires the use of an action (rather than bonus action) and does not include the phrase "the illusion is intangible and does not occupy its space" instead describing it as "perfect" -- if the language you quoted is not from the 5e feature, I still wonder if there's a different interpretation for that feature?
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
The language on Invoke Duplicity says
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Ranged attack spells from the duplicate's space would be fine, provided that you still have line of sight to the target etc from your own space. So you can't use the duplicate to cast Guiding Bolt around a corner, or that kind of thing
Is your description from 5e PHB? In the PHB I have, the feature requires the use of an action (rather than bonus action) and does not include the phrase "the illusion is intangible and does not occupy its space" instead describing it as "perfect" -- if the language you quoted is not from the 5e feature, I still wonder if there's a different interpretation for that feature?
As a Bonus Action, you can expend one use of your Channel Divinity to create a perfect visual illusion of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of yourself. The illusion is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space.
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
The language on Invoke Duplicity says
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Ranged attack spells from the duplicate's space would be fine, provided that you still have line of sight to the target etc from your own space. So you can't use the duplicate to cast Guiding Bolt around a corner, or that kind of thing
Is your description from 5e PHB? In the PHB I have, the feature requires the use of an action (rather than bonus action) and does not include the phrase "the illusion is intangible and does not occupy its space" instead describing it as "perfect" -- if the language you quoted is not from the 5e feature, I still wonder if there's a different interpretation for that feature?
Perhaps you have the old 2014 PHB?
I guess so -- is there errata that corrects the description or is the bonus action version of invoke duplicity from the 2024 PHB?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hi Again, As the heading of the thread states, I'm dealing with 5e rules and descriptions, ie 2014 PHB, not OneDnD/2024 -- if anyone has any insights to original question, please lmk and thanks! T
Hi Again, As the heading of the thread states, I'm dealing with 5e rules and descriptions, ie 2014 PHB, not OneDnD/2024 -- if anyone has any insights to original question, please lmk and thanks! T
You seem to be misunderstanding some things. The 2024 rules are still very much 5e, so “I’m dealing with 5e rules” isn’t a useful clarification. We’re all dealing with 5e rules.
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hi Again, As the heading of the thread states, I'm dealing with 5e rules and descriptions, ie 2014 PHB, not OneDnD/2024 -- if anyone has any insights to original question, please lmk and thanks! T
With the 2014 rules, it's a lot less clear whether blade cantrips, or touch spells, will work via the duplicate
The argument in favor is basically, "You can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate's space, which means you can do everything that goes along with casting that spell, melee attacks included"
The argument against (for blade cantrips) is basically, "Features do what they say they do, no more and no less. Invoke Duplicity says you can cast a spell as though you were in the duplicate's space, but it doesn't say you can make a melee attack" -- something which, as you noted, Echo Knight does specify
In the 2014 rules, it really came down to your DM's ruling whether the combo would work. In 2024, they at least tried to make it clearer that the illusion can't physically interact with anything
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
You want rules text for... the definition of the word intangible?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
You want rules text for... the definition of the word intangible?
Did you even read my post? The illusion being intangible doesn’t matter because the illusion isn’t doing anything. You are tangible; you’re the one casting the spell; you’re the game object being treated as if it’s in the illusion’s space.
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
You want rules text for... the definition of the word intangible?
Did you even read my post? The illusion being intangible doesn’t matter because the illusion isn’t doing anything. You are tangible; you’re the one casting the spell; you’re the game object being treated as if it’s in the illusion’s space.
Did you even read my post on the 2014 rules? It was not at all a settled matter as to whether Booming Blade etc. would be legal to cast via the duplicate
They made that addition/change to the 2024 rules for a reason. I'll leave it up to you to provide an alternate explanation
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
You want rules text for... the definition of the word intangible?
Did you even read my post? The illusion being intangible doesn’t matter because the illusion isn’t doing anything. You are tangible; you’re the one casting the spell; you’re the game object being treated as if it’s in the illusion’s space.
Did you even read my post on the 2014 rules? It was not at all a settled matter as to whether Booming Blade etc. would be legal to cast via the duplicate
They made that addition/change to the 2024 rules for a reason. I'll leave it up to you to provide an alternate explanation
Your post on the 2014 rules was not in response to me, and it also doesn’t really have any bearing on this exchange we’re having now, in which you focus on the intangible nature of the illusion, which is the only difference between 2014 and 2024. The argument that it doesn’t say you can make an attack is totally unrelated to tangibility; it’s not what we’re talking about.
What I’m saying is that there’s no text to suggest that the illusion’s tangibility has any bearing whatsoever on the “cast spells” part of the feature. Like I said, I understand how one way you might narrate the feature would lead to that conclusion, but the rules do not seem to support it. If you have any textual arguments as to why it should matter, I would like to consider them.
As to the reason for the change, I think clarifying that it doesn’t occupy its space is very relevant for determining whether or not it can be moved through, whether or not it provides cover, etc. What does not logically follow from the new intangibility is that an ability granted by the feature that in no way involves the illusion doing anything would be impacted by it.
What does not logically follow from the new intangibility is that an ability granted by the feature that in no way involves the illusion doing anything would be impacted by it.
Then we're right back to the 2014 arguments, if you think the illusion being explicitly intangible has no effect on spells that require physical contact
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yea I have to agree with Saga here, nothing in the feature indicates that the illusion is casting the spell, everything points to the character doing it and thus the tangibility (or lack of) of the illusion is irrelevant. The feature says that you can cast spells from a specified location and thus you can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When using the invoke duplicity channel divinity feature, a trickery domain cleric can "cast spells as though you were in the illusion's space." If a trickery domain cleric were to somehow acquire the booming blade or green flame blade cantrips, through a multi-class or feat, it would follow that they could cast the spell from the position of the duplicate. The description of the feature, though, does not explicitly say the duplicate can make a melee attack. So is it the case that these spells could be cast via the duplicate but not completed with the necessary melee attack roll with a "brandished" weapon, RAW? On the other hand, to use either of those two cantrips is to take the "cast a spell" action which includes a melee attack roll as part of the casting. Spells like Inflict Wounds also require a melee attack roll as part of the spell's casting and could be done from the duplicate's position since RAW allow, though in that case the cleric has to touch the target. Has anyone ruled on the invoke duplicity feature description in relation to these two cantrips? I'm leaning towards allowing the cantrips to be cast since they do fall under the "cast a spell" action and don't require concentration (which use of the feature does require), though because the duplicate would hold an illusory "brandished" weapon, I'm not sure if this gives the feature too much power (putting it more in line with the Echo Knight's duplicate, which is a much more powerful feature). Thanks! T
As the illusion is intangible, any Touch spell, or any spell that required a physical attack, would have no effect
Whether "no effect" means you couldn't cast it at all, or would just be wasting your turn/spell slot, would depend on whether the DM failed their Spite check or not
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space means most spell should take effect from this location but if one include you making a weapon attack, the attack would have no effect since the illusion is intangible.
Ok got it, I wish the description were more explicit regarding spells with attack rolls. Would a spell requiring a ranged attack roll also fail, do you think, or does the casting of the spell from the duplicates position only apply to AOE spells (assuming they don't require concentration)?
The language on Invoke Duplicity says
Ranged attack spells from the duplicate's space would be fine, provided that you still have line of sight to the target etc from your own space. So you can't use the duplicate to cast Guiding Bolt around a corner, or that kind of thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Is your description from 5e PHB? In the PHB I have, the feature requires the use of an action (rather than bonus action) and does not include the phrase "the illusion is intangible and does not occupy its space" instead describing it as "perfect" -- if the language you quoted is not from the 5e feature, I still wonder if there's a different interpretation for that feature?
Perhaps you have the old 2014 PHB?
I guess so -- is there errata that corrects the description or is the bonus action version of invoke duplicity from the 2024 PHB?
Yeah, that's 2024 PHB
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hi Again, As the heading of the thread states, I'm dealing with 5e rules and descriptions, ie 2014 PHB, not OneDnD/2024 -- if anyone has any insights to original question, please lmk and thanks! T
You seem to be misunderstanding some things. The 2024 rules are still very much 5e, so “I’m dealing with 5e rules” isn’t a useful clarification. We’re all dealing with 5e rules.
That said, nothing relevant to your question has changed between 2014 and 2024. You can cast spells as if you were in the illusion’s space. If you were in the illusion’s space, you wouldn’t have any trouble making the melee attack that is part of the spellcasting, so you can do it.
There are big differences between the 2014 and 2024 versions of Invoke Duplicity -- including that 2024 specifies that the duplicate is intangible, which shuts down a lot of the ways people argued they could use the 2014 version. Booming Blade included
(For the record, I never would have allowed it at my table with the 2014 version either, but it was nowhere near as cut and dried and could be argued both ways)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
With the 2014 rules, it's a lot less clear whether blade cantrips, or touch spells, will work via the duplicate
The argument in favor is basically, "You can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate's space, which means you can do everything that goes along with casting that spell, melee attacks included"
The argument against (for blade cantrips) is basically, "Features do what they say they do, no more and no less. Invoke Duplicity says you can cast a spell as though you were in the duplicate's space, but it doesn't say you can make a melee attack" -- something which, as you noted, Echo Knight does specify
In the 2014 rules, it really came down to your DM's ruling whether the combo would work. In 2024, they at least tried to make it clearer that the illusion can't physically interact with anything
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you can point to some rules text that makes that relevant, please do, but I can't see any connection between the duplicate being intangible and the remote casting aspect of the feature. The duplicate isn't casting anything, you are, as if you were located where the duplicate is. I get that narratively we could imagine this means the duplicate is what's doing the action, but as a matter of rules, I see no text that supports the mechanical significance of that narrative.
You want rules text for... the definition of the word intangible?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Did you even read my post? The illusion being intangible doesn’t matter because the illusion isn’t doing anything. You are tangible; you’re the one casting the spell; you’re the game object being treated as if it’s in the illusion’s space.
Did you even read my post on the 2014 rules? It was not at all a settled matter as to whether Booming Blade etc. would be legal to cast via the duplicate
They made that addition/change to the 2024 rules for a reason. I'll leave it up to you to provide an alternate explanation
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Your post on the 2014 rules was not in response to me, and it also doesn’t really have any bearing on this exchange we’re having now, in which you focus on the intangible nature of the illusion, which is the only difference between 2014 and 2024. The argument that it doesn’t say you can make an attack is totally unrelated to tangibility; it’s not what we’re talking about.
What I’m saying is that there’s no text to suggest that the illusion’s tangibility has any bearing whatsoever on the “cast spells” part of the feature. Like I said, I understand how one way you might narrate the feature would lead to that conclusion, but the rules do not seem to support it. If you have any textual arguments as to why it should matter, I would like to consider them.
As to the reason for the change, I think clarifying that it doesn’t occupy its space is very relevant for determining whether or not it can be moved through, whether or not it provides cover, etc. What does not logically follow from the new intangibility is that an ability granted by the feature that in no way involves the illusion doing anything would be impacted by it.
Then we're right back to the 2014 arguments, if you think the illusion being explicitly intangible has no effect on spells that require physical contact
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yea I have to agree with Saga here, nothing in the feature indicates that the illusion is casting the spell, everything points to the character doing it and thus the tangibility (or lack of) of the illusion is irrelevant. The feature says that you can cast spells from a specified location and thus you can.