I think that it would work, but the caster would be able to see through it (disbelieving the illusion) as well as anyone who takes an action and succeeds on an INT check against it.
But....
What if the caster told the rest of the party: "When I cast Darkness, it's not really Darkness." Would they be able to see through it without taking an action for the INT check?
And illusions become clear when physically touched (i.e. putting one's hand through an illusory wall). However, would this work on darkness, since darkness has no physical presence in the first place?
And further, if physically interacting with darkness reveals it to be an illusion, would an arrow or spell flying through it reveal it to be an illusion (as it likely would if an arrow, say, flew through an illusory wall or illusory dragon)?
I would say that physically placing any part of a character's body within the illusion would make it clear, as any other illusion. While darkness doesn't typically have a physical form, this isn't actually darkness but an illusion of darkness, and thus it must occupy space.
And I think the idea of a spell or arrow moving throw the illusion revealing it is that those things penetrate rather than striking, which would be less obvious with an area of darkness. So I'd not have that break the illusion right away, personally.
Using Major Image, an illusion of an area of darkness works just fine as a "visible phenomenon."
"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is," they can see through it. The spell provides two ways that one might come to that conclusion (physically interacting; spending an action to perform an Investigation check), but that isn't to say that a creature can't reach that conclusion in other ways. Telling someone (who believes you) that it is an illusion should allow an action-free way of ensuring that they already discern it to be an illusion. In certain contexts, I imagine that a particularly wiley NPC might also come to a conclusion that something is an illusion by reading the caster with a Sense Motive check, rather than scrutinizing the illusion itself with Investigate. Same thing with your arrow question... I think that you risk seriously nerfing the spell if every stray missile causes auto-disbelief for everyone on the battlefield, but if you wanted an arrow to cause creatures with passive perceptions over the Spell DC to discern the illusion, that would still be within the spirit and balance of the spell I would think.
Touching the illusion's area causes it to be revealed, regardless of whether its an object or a visible phenomenon without a physical presence. Think of it as... as you enter the edge, you might notice that your body remains fully lit without falling into shadow, despite everything around you looking like inky blackness? Or some other way that it just feels "off" from how you normally would describe darkness or a Darkness spell.
hypothetically lets say that it does work.. how would devil's sight or even daylight interact with it? im leaning towards that it wouldn't.. which lets say that since darkness is intangible so it can't be automatically interacted with like Ishtilyaq says.. i think would be a great way to actually raise the awareness of why this particular darkness isn't interacting with DS or daylight which, if the PC (or NPC) is aware enough to then actually do the investigate check
hypothetically lets say that it does work.. how would devil's sight or even daylight interact with it? im leaning towards that it wouldn't.. which lets say that since darkness is intangible so it can't be automatically interacted with like Ishtilyaq says.. i think would be a great way to actually raise the awareness of why this particular darkness isn't interacting with DS or daylight which, if the PC (or NPC) is aware enough to then actually do the investigate check
As soon as the area reacts differently to things that affect Darkness people are going to suspect something is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
hypothetically lets say that it does work.. how would devil's sight or even daylight interact with it? im leaning towards that it wouldn't.. which lets say that since darkness is intangible so it can't be automatically interacted with like Ishtilyaq says.. i think would be a great way to actually raise the awareness of why this particular darkness isn't interacting with DS or daylight which, if the PC (or NPC) is aware enough to then actually do the investigate check
As soon as the area reacts differently to things that affect Darkness people are going to suspect something is wrong.
So that's what I'm asking, would Devil's sight interact with major image darkness or no? Only truesight (or tremorsense/blindsense) so it would become suspicious but that would be the only way to even *get* suspicious withou metagaming?
I was thinking the same thing but to mimic Fog Cloud. Passing through Fog Cloud shouldn't make you realize its an illusion since its not something physical like a door or brick wall, you're supposed to be able to walk through a fog. Its a 3rd level spell that impacts visibility, smell, sound, etc.
Then the next question is, if they are affected by either Darkness or Fog Cloud by Major Image, they are technically blinded as its a heavily obscured area. That means they auto fail all checks that require sight, would an Investigation check that you're trying to determine if a Fog or Darkness is real not require sight? Touching the fog or darkness would mean nothing as its not supposed to feel like anything.
Maybe that would be too OP if it could both heavily obscure and prevent them from performing a check, but of course its only a 20ft cube so they could always just move out of it.
I dunno, i'd say yes they'd both cause heavy obscured area but probably wouldn't due the auto fail Investigation check. But gotta make it somewhat powerful since its a 3rd lvl spell and Hypnotic Pattern could have been used in its place.
I was thinking the same thing but to mimic Fog Cloud. Passing through Fog Cloud shouldn't make you realize its an illusion since its not something physical like a door or brick wall, you're supposed to be able to walk through a fog. Its a 3rd level spell that impacts visibility, smell, sound, etc.
Then the next question is, if they are affected by either Darkness or Fog Cloud by Major Image, they are technically blinded as its a heavily obscured area. That means they auto fail all checks that require sight, would an Investigation check that you're trying to determine if a Fog or Darkness is real not require sight? Touching the fog or darkness would mean nothing as its not supposed to feel like anything.
Maybe that would be too OP if it could both heavily obscure and prevent them from performing a check, but of course its only a 20ft cube so they could always just move out of it.
I dunno, i'd say yes they'd both cause heavy obscured area but probably wouldn't due the auto fail Investigation check. But gotta make it somewhat powerful since its a 3rd lvl spell and Hypnotic Pattern could have been used in its place.
Illusions are something that comes down to the individual DMs interpretation. Unfortunately, there isn't one answer and folks can argue about RAW without coming to a conclusion. Personally, I usually go with any physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion but other interpretations are equally valid.
The key phrases from the spell:
"You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. The image appears at a spot that you can see within range and lasts for the duration. It seems completely real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted. You can't create sufficient heat or cold to cause damage, a sound loud enough to deal thunder damage or deafen a creature, or a smell that might sicken a creature (like a troglodyte's stench)."
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
1) Can you create an illusion of a fog cloud or magical darkness? Presumably yes since they would be covered under the heading of other visible phenomenon.
2) Can an illusion be revealed by interaction?
Some people argue that if the illusion is of something that could normally be moved through that interaction with it would not reveal it to be an illusion. Others suggest that moving through an intangible illusion would reveal it because it doesn't respond appropriately to the interaction so moving through it still reveals it.
For example, fog usually varies and will move in response to the wind or the passage of a creature. Illusory fog does not. The caster can move the illusion around but they can't make the illusion responsive to interactions that they don't control.
In the case of an illusion of magical darkness - essentially creating an illusion of a black globe or cube of suitable size (the viewer doesn't actually know it is supposed to be darkness) what would happen if someone took a light source into the area? The illusion does not put out the light source as real magical darkness would. The light from the torch would still be visible from outside the illusion. The same would hold true for fog cloud honestly. Fog cloud illusions wouldn't block light sources from inside them while a real fog cloud would make them heavily obscured. The illusion doesn't have those abilities (unless the DM decides that it does).
If a creature with devils sight viewed an illusion of a giant black sphere (which the caster might have intended to be magical darkness) then the viewer would see a giant black sphere. They would know it wasn't magical darkness because they couldn't see through it. They would not necessarily know what it was, however, if it just appeared out of nowhere then the viewer with devils sight would likely suspect it might be an illusion since a giant black sphere appearing would seem to be unlikely in most situations.
3) What about objects coming out of the illusion? If the DM rules that any interaction reveals the illusion then firing arrows from inside it will reveal the illusion. On the other hand, the DM might decide that while the arrow is inside the illusion, someone who believes the illusion, can't see the interaction anyway, so firing out of an illusion would not necessarily reveal its nature. Again, completely a DM call.
----
The problem with generous interpretations of Major Image is power creep.
- can it be used as magical darkness?
- can it be used to mimic a fog cloud?
Anything you can see could be considered a "visible phenomenon". Could you use Major Image to create an illusion of an empty stage while the stage hands moved in and set the next scene? Does that sound unreasonable? Probably not. However, what happens when the characters use Major image to create an illusion of the area where they are standing but without the characters?
- can Major Image be used as a 20' cube of invisibility (or invisibility 10' radius as in previous editions? :) ).
------
Interpreting and ruling illusions is an art that varies from DM to DM. Some other good examples where DMs will vary a lot:
Minor Illusion - can you create an image of a door that can hide an actual door being opened? Can you use it to create an image of a crate that you could use to hide behind?
Phantasmal Force - this creates an illusion in the mind of the target. The phantasm can do damage to the target if they are within the area of the phantasm or within 5' of it. However, if the creature decides to run away from the phantasm can it follow? The target rationalizes any inconsistency in the illusion if they fail their save but there is a lot of room for DM rulings. For example, if a target only takes damage if within 5' - this would presumably mean that an illusion of a fixed object like a pool of acid or a fire can't move or can it? Can an illusion of an attacking creature stay with the target? From a logical point of view, in terms of an illusion in the mind of the target, sure (and that is the way I would rule it) but other DMs have other opinions.
Before using any illusion spell in a game it is a good idea to chat to the DM, discuss a range of scenarios and find out how they would rule on them so that the character understands how illusion magic works in that particular game world.
Thats a good explanation and its fair to say the illusion wouldn't be able to create the actual effects of a spell like Fog Cloud or Darkness but may faint mimicries of them. But ya I think you're right it would definitely depend on how you sell it/describe it and how your DM would interpret the interaction. My DM likes creative thinking but also doesn't like over powered things, so it would be a toss up. It certainly is a versatile spell and something even if the likes of Fog Cloud or Darkness don't work for i'd still end up taking with my next Bard build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How would it work?
I think that it would work, but the caster would be able to see through it (disbelieving the illusion) as well as anyone who takes an action and succeeds on an INT check against it.
But....
What if the caster told the rest of the party: "When I cast Darkness, it's not really Darkness." Would they be able to see through it without taking an action for the INT check?
And illusions become clear when physically touched (i.e. putting one's hand through an illusory wall). However, would this work on darkness, since darkness has no physical presence in the first place?
And further, if physically interacting with darkness reveals it to be an illusion, would an arrow or spell flying through it reveal it to be an illusion (as it likely would if an arrow, say, flew through an illusory wall or illusory dragon)?
Blood Frenzy. The quipper has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 piercing damage.
I would say that physically placing any part of a character's body within the illusion would make it clear, as any other illusion. While darkness doesn't typically have a physical form, this isn't actually darkness but an illusion of darkness, and thus it must occupy space.
And I think the idea of a spell or arrow moving throw the illusion revealing it is that those things penetrate rather than striking, which would be less obvious with an area of darkness. So I'd not have that break the illusion right away, personally.
If you need it, I can homebrew it.
Using Major Image, an illusion of an area of darkness works just fine as a "visible phenomenon."
"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is," they can see through it. The spell provides two ways that one might come to that conclusion (physically interacting; spending an action to perform an Investigation check), but that isn't to say that a creature can't reach that conclusion in other ways. Telling someone (who believes you) that it is an illusion should allow an action-free way of ensuring that they already discern it to be an illusion. In certain contexts, I imagine that a particularly wiley NPC might also come to a conclusion that something is an illusion by reading the caster with a Sense Motive check, rather than scrutinizing the illusion itself with Investigate. Same thing with your arrow question... I think that you risk seriously nerfing the spell if every stray missile causes auto-disbelief for everyone on the battlefield, but if you wanted an arrow to cause creatures with passive perceptions over the Spell DC to discern the illusion, that would still be within the spirit and balance of the spell I would think.
Touching the illusion's area causes it to be revealed, regardless of whether its an object or a visible phenomenon without a physical presence. Think of it as... as you enter the edge, you might notice that your body remains fully lit without falling into shadow, despite everything around you looking like inky blackness? Or some other way that it just feels "off" from how you normally would describe darkness or a Darkness spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
sorry for the rezz but may have this coming up (as the DM).
when looking into this myself I found this.. which is pretty thorough
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/92316/can-i-use-major-image-to-create-darkness#:~:text=Can I create darkness with Major Image?,-Like a dark&text=You create the image of,phenomenon so yes you can.
hypothetically lets say that it does work.. how would devil's sight or even daylight interact with it? im leaning towards that it wouldn't.. which lets say that since darkness is intangible so it can't be automatically interacted with like Ishtilyaq says.. i think would be a great way to actually raise the awareness of why this particular darkness isn't interacting with DS or daylight which, if the PC (or NPC) is aware enough to then actually do the investigate check
As soon as the area reacts differently to things that affect Darkness people are going to suspect something is wrong.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
So that's what I'm asking, would Devil's sight interact with major image darkness or no? Only truesight (or tremorsense/blindsense) so it would become suspicious but that would be the only way to even *get* suspicious withou metagaming?
I was thinking the same thing but to mimic Fog Cloud. Passing through Fog Cloud shouldn't make you realize its an illusion since its not something physical like a door or brick wall, you're supposed to be able to walk through a fog. Its a 3rd level spell that impacts visibility, smell, sound, etc.
Then the next question is, if they are affected by either Darkness or Fog Cloud by Major Image, they are technically blinded as its a heavily obscured area. That means they auto fail all checks that require sight, would an Investigation check that you're trying to determine if a Fog or Darkness is real not require sight? Touching the fog or darkness would mean nothing as its not supposed to feel like anything.
Maybe that would be too OP if it could both heavily obscure and prevent them from performing a check, but of course its only a 20ft cube so they could always just move out of it.
I dunno, i'd say yes they'd both cause heavy obscured area but probably wouldn't due the auto fail Investigation check. But gotta make it somewhat powerful since its a 3rd lvl spell and Hypnotic Pattern could have been used in its place.
Illusions are something that comes down to the individual DMs interpretation. Unfortunately, there isn't one answer and folks can argue about RAW without coming to a conclusion. Personally, I usually go with any physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion but other interpretations are equally valid.
The key phrases from the spell:
"You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. The image appears at a spot that you can see within range and lasts for the duration. It seems completely real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted. You can't create sufficient heat or cold to cause damage, a sound loud enough to deal thunder damage or deafen a creature, or a smell that might sicken a creature (like a troglodyte's stench)."
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
1) Can you create an illusion of a fog cloud or magical darkness? Presumably yes since they would be covered under the heading of other visible phenomenon.
2) Can an illusion be revealed by interaction?
Some people argue that if the illusion is of something that could normally be moved through that interaction with it would not reveal it to be an illusion. Others suggest that moving through an intangible illusion would reveal it because it doesn't respond appropriately to the interaction so moving through it still reveals it.
For example, fog usually varies and will move in response to the wind or the passage of a creature. Illusory fog does not. The caster can move the illusion around but they can't make the illusion responsive to interactions that they don't control.
In the case of an illusion of magical darkness - essentially creating an illusion of a black globe or cube of suitable size (the viewer doesn't actually know it is supposed to be darkness) what would happen if someone took a light source into the area? The illusion does not put out the light source as real magical darkness would. The light from the torch would still be visible from outside the illusion. The same would hold true for fog cloud honestly. Fog cloud illusions wouldn't block light sources from inside them while a real fog cloud would make them heavily obscured. The illusion doesn't have those abilities (unless the DM decides that it does).
If a creature with devils sight viewed an illusion of a giant black sphere (which the caster might have intended to be magical darkness) then the viewer would see a giant black sphere. They would know it wasn't magical darkness because they couldn't see through it. They would not necessarily know what it was, however, if it just appeared out of nowhere then the viewer with devils sight would likely suspect it might be an illusion since a giant black sphere appearing would seem to be unlikely in most situations.
3) What about objects coming out of the illusion? If the DM rules that any interaction reveals the illusion then firing arrows from inside it will reveal the illusion. On the other hand, the DM might decide that while the arrow is inside the illusion, someone who believes the illusion, can't see the interaction anyway, so firing out of an illusion would not necessarily reveal its nature. Again, completely a DM call.
----
The problem with generous interpretations of Major Image is power creep.
- can it be used as magical darkness?
- can it be used to mimic a fog cloud?
Anything you can see could be considered a "visible phenomenon". Could you use Major Image to create an illusion of an empty stage while the stage hands moved in and set the next scene? Does that sound unreasonable? Probably not. However, what happens when the characters use Major image to create an illusion of the area where they are standing but without the characters?
- can Major Image be used as a 20' cube of invisibility (or invisibility 10' radius as in previous editions? :) ).
------
Interpreting and ruling illusions is an art that varies from DM to DM. Some other good examples where DMs will vary a lot:
Minor Illusion - can you create an image of a door that can hide an actual door being opened? Can you use it to create an image of a crate that you could use to hide behind?
Phantasmal Force - this creates an illusion in the mind of the target. The phantasm can do damage to the target if they are within the area of the phantasm or within 5' of it. However, if the creature decides to run away from the phantasm can it follow? The target rationalizes any inconsistency in the illusion if they fail their save but there is a lot of room for DM rulings. For example, if a target only takes damage if within 5' - this would presumably mean that an illusion of a fixed object like a pool of acid or a fire can't move or can it? Can an illusion of an attacking creature stay with the target? From a logical point of view, in terms of an illusion in the mind of the target, sure (and that is the way I would rule it) but other DMs have other opinions.
Before using any illusion spell in a game it is a good idea to chat to the DM, discuss a range of scenarios and find out how they would rule on them so that the character understands how illusion magic works in that particular game world.
Thats a good explanation and its fair to say the illusion wouldn't be able to create the actual effects of a spell like Fog Cloud or Darkness but may faint mimicries of them. But ya I think you're right it would definitely depend on how you sell it/describe it and how your DM would interpret the interaction. My DM likes creative thinking but also doesn't like over powered things, so it would be a toss up. It certainly is a versatile spell and something even if the likes of Fog Cloud or Darkness don't work for i'd still end up taking with my next Bard build.