A throwaway comment that Jeremy made that should be taken seriously is “As a DM I’m always generous toward cleverness.” Something that I’m going to endeavor to keep in mind as I DM.
What I think would be funny would be if you made an illusionary animal walk through a real hazard. The players might assume that the animal is real and the hazard fake. Like a cat walks through a spike wall. Then the character might run straight into the real spike wall without checking to be sure and take damage, and they would sit there thinking " what the heck?".
If you have two spell casters you could have an illusory animal walk over/through/into a real hazard with a replica illusory effect on top of that real hazard. So they don't know if the animal is real, or the hazard is real, but since it's overlayed on a real hazard....total mind fuck. Hardcore gaslighting.
One Illusion spell I wish they clarified is Mirage Arcana, especially with how it interacts with Malleable Illusion. Mr. Crawford has gone on to say that you drown in Mirage Arcane's illusory lakes, or climb its illusory towers, and they said this in response to someone asking what would happen with a Mirage Arcane of a lava field. These clarifications and synergies with the ability of the class most inclined to use these spells makes this a really difficult spell to pin down the power of. Could someone drown a dungeon by creating an illusory underground stream? Could you kill someone with fall damage by using malleable illusion to repeatedly raise and disappear the surface they're standing on. Are we using improvised damage rules for the lava field? Would illusory lava damage a creature with fire immunity, or would it all be psychic damage, or would the psychic damage be negated by a creature who, thanks to knowledge of their immunity, not view it as a threat? We can adjudicate some of this stuff, make sensible rulings, but some things still remain, like whether or not attacks pass through the illusory towers that are real enough to climb, or whether the illusions turn semitransparent to truesight, and, if so, would they count as an obstruction for the purposes of having a clear line of effect for the purposes of spellcasting? I get the idea is that this swings on the table for the purposes of GM/player freedom, but honestly that just makes getting excited about your character's tricks difficult because it's not very standardized. Why bother getting invested in the cool or clever things you've thought up if every table is having to make up their own rules to fill in the gaps, causing you to feel nerfed or overpowered every which way.
Historically the school's name is illusion/phantasm. It had illusions, phantasms, and shadow magics such as Shadow Magic, Demishadow Monsters, and Shades.
6 years later I'm still wondering if there's any way to see through the Mislead spell, because it's like the only illusion spell with no clause for noticing it's an illusion. It doesn't even say things pass through it, so is it actually tangible?
As a DM back in the day I would have an evil illusionist cast Improved Phantasmal Force and creat an illusion that a PC has caught on fire. They would have to state that their character is actively attempting to disbelieve. They would then be able to make a saving throw. If they made it they were able to disbelieve successfully. Illusions have been nerfed slightly in newer editions.
I love this idea of a Gnomish illusionist theatre of the mind... theatre. I been thinking about this for a little while, funny that you mentioned it. I think I’d start with a large building, something like an old warehouse, cheap, big and modified to fit the narrative. I’d come up with some kind of snuff or incense that players breath in that causes them to be more susceptible to illusions (granting the illusionist advantage on all rolls to disbelieve). I’d then do something where the illusionist has the customers walk into a lounge, they would be vetted and made sure to be under the influence of the drug and then be asked to walk through a doorway into the illusionists domain, where they can enter the game. I’m imagining a zone of silence that the illusionist operates behind, casting his spells and watching the players from up above, interact with his theatre on the fly. Figments, glamours and maybe even phantoms could be used to slowly remove participants until the winner being the last one alive. I’m hung up on the fact that illusions don’t do damage. If they could some how knock the participants unconscious, or some other clever way to remove them I’d be up for anything that makes sense. Haven’t really thought beyond this, I think as a dm I could wing it enough to make work but if a player wanted to do this I’d have to work out more of the mechanics of how people got taken out.
Putting Illusions that take place in a mind or comprise of only sounds aside for a moment. What we see is light, so a visual illusion must either produce light or interact with the light that exists. Producing light would in my opinion, create many OP interactions and it would be more of a sub school of Evocation. (a miniature star that produces daylight [bright light]) Interacting with light would in my opinion, produce fewer exploitable options. Illusions should block light (casting shadows that react to changes in lighting conditions) and create a reflection in a mirror. A magic that reflects and refracts light that interacts with it, has a mechanic that is simple, consistent and understandable. As for how it appears when a creature knows it is an illusion I would say it's like a semi silvered mirror.
Phantasmal Force, creative illusion to apply a condition.. Make them see a Basilisk where you are, so they avert their eyes. If that doesn't give you Advantage on your strikes, or at least has them swinging at Disadvantage.. I don't know what would.
OMFG! I am trying to get insights into how illusions work, because they are poorly described in the book. And every time he is asked a question that goes to clarification, he just refers to the book, proclaiming that it answers the question. Fist time my never played before player's wizard casts minor illusion she says "I create the illusion of a piece of cloth in front of the enemy's face"... Well, shit... Cantrip blind spell?
how about the enemy attacks the piece of cloth and wastes an action? if you're using your action you should be able to at least have a chance of getting someone else to waste their action, maybe the cloth illusion doesn't work for that but you should be able to come up with SOMETHING that at least has a CHANCE to effect action economy
@@Accolonian oh, what page of the PHB was that on? if a cantrip can't effect action economy and I'm playing a combat-heavy campaign, the cantrip is useless if it can't effect action economy and therefore a wasted action to cast it and my DM should tell everyone not to bother with minor illusions because he will bypass investigation checks and deny any impact to action economy! See this is what I don't like, people deciding what THEY "think" is realistic or too powerful or unbalanced, but stick to RAW and you'll be fine! I see nothing in the rules about bypassing investigation checks if minor illusion is used in combat and it would specifically say that cantrips are not meant to impact action economy if that were the case.
@@quonomonna8126 Sorry. I am confusing terms. Cantrips are spell group in 5th, that does effects action economy. I am confusing it with Prestidigitation that in earlier editions was described as "doing cantrips". Still, it's a 1st level unlimited cast spell. If you can use it to force an opponent to spend an action to investigate, then it is too powerful. Luckily, you can't, as I have discovered in the year that has gone since I wrote the comment. The illusion is stationary within a 5 foot cube, so if you create the illusion of a cloth i front of the enemy's face he would probably just go "woah" and move around it as part of his movement. He doesn't have to explore it to avoid it. But my initial point was that I whised this video had gone into a talk about exploits like this, since that is what I came for.
@@Accolonian I put a crate in front of the halfling rogue to give him cover, does the enemy know the crate is an illusion automatically without having to physically interact with it or make an investigation check?
Right? One common misconception I've experienced was that Invisibility automatically makes you hidden. My group came to this conclusion because there were so many high level abilities that specified you know the location of invisible creatures in a certain radius, so we took that to mean that you normally didn't know, in addition to the fact that invisibility in previous editions had the spell make you very difficult to notice. However, Mr. Crawford has since gone on to clarify that invisibility does not automatically hide you, meaning that for anyone without a way to hide with something other than an action, fully disappearing with invisibility becomes a two round set up instead of one round, which really swings the spell's power in terms of using it as a quick escape, as well as the necessity of its counterpart, the See Invisibility spell. I get that 5e is supposed to be a little loosey goosey in its design on purpose, but I feel part of why people pay for these books is so professional game designers can look to them and say "follow these rules, and things should stay pretty balanced". When I pay for the book but I have to pour through books and tweets and podcasts to learn how things are intended to work, and often the answer you arrive at is "Use your imagination", it feels like a bit of a ripoff. I know I can make stuff up. The point of purchasing a ruleset was to find a balanced way to hem things in so our imagination game doesn't constantly run into the schoolyard unbreakable shield/unblockable attack nonsense.
@@AnExistanceOfNothing Jeremy Crawford does say that the interplay of perception, stealth, hide, hidden and invisibility can't be covered by absolute rules that's why a Dungeon Master brain is required. You don't actually need to hide or be hidden to be hard to find. I get your frustration though.
Joseph Rizzo During the Twitch stream, after the break and before the second hour, he admitted he realized his mistake. They said they put up something on the video to let everyone know that. Seems they forgot...
Daren SF they put it at e beginning of the video for Playtesting. I just decided to comment here for anyone who hadn't seen that yet or the twitch stream
I also wish they specified how difficult it is to interact with an illusion. Something as simple as an AC for Major Image would be nice. I also want to know how these spells interact with skills. If I make a dragon that roars, is there an intimidation check involved? Deception? Performance? As an illusionist, do I need to start spending feats on skill proficiencies so my illusions have their intended effects? Rather than making these spells more fun, I feel like leaving them so undefined discourages people from playing classes centered around them, and makes more work for the GM to try and figure out how much they should let the spells accomplish. Why get invested in the idea of playing a class that could get your hand smacked with a metaphorical wooden spoon at every turn. It's not like the Fighter has to worry about their extra attacks getting handwaved away.
A throwaway comment that Jeremy made that should be taken seriously is “As a DM I’m always generous toward cleverness.” Something that I’m going to endeavor to keep in mind as I DM.
12 minutes of banter at the beggining is killing your videos, at the very least move it to the end.
Wrong
Starts at 12:45
The Hero we needed.
Thanks
Greg Tito: "Uh.. Uh.. Uh.... Uh... Uh.... UH... UHHHH.... dude, learn to stop saying "UH" with every sentence
THANK YOU. Who wants to hear all of that inane chit chat?
Ty!
Jeremy has such a comforting voice!
What I think would be funny would be if you made an illusionary animal walk through a real hazard. The players might assume that the animal is real and the hazard fake. Like a cat walks through a spike wall. Then the character might run straight into the real spike wall without checking to be sure and take damage, and they would sit there thinking " what the heck?".
If you have two spell casters you could have an illusory animal walk over/through/into a real hazard with a replica illusory effect on top of that real hazard. So they don't know if the animal is real, or the hazard is real, but since it's overlayed on a real hazard....total mind fuck. Hardcore gaslighting.
One Illusion spell I wish they clarified is Mirage Arcana, especially with how it interacts with Malleable Illusion. Mr. Crawford has gone on to say that you drown in Mirage Arcane's illusory lakes, or climb its illusory towers, and they said this in response to someone asking what would happen with a Mirage Arcane of a lava field. These clarifications and synergies with the ability of the class most inclined to use these spells makes this a really difficult spell to pin down the power of. Could someone drown a dungeon by creating an illusory underground stream? Could you kill someone with fall damage by using malleable illusion to repeatedly raise and disappear the surface they're standing on. Are we using improvised damage rules for the lava field? Would illusory lava damage a creature with fire immunity, or would it all be psychic damage, or would the psychic damage be negated by a creature who, thanks to knowledge of their immunity, not view it as a threat?
We can adjudicate some of this stuff, make sensible rulings, but some things still remain, like whether or not attacks pass through the illusory towers that are real enough to climb, or whether the illusions turn semitransparent to truesight, and, if so, would they count as an obstruction for the purposes of having a clear line of effect for the purposes of spellcasting?
I get the idea is that this swings on the table for the purposes of GM/player freedom, but honestly that just makes getting excited about your character's tricks difficult because it's not very standardized. Why bother getting invested in the cool or clever things you've thought up if every table is having to make up their own rules to fill in the gaps, causing you to feel nerfed or overpowered every which way.
where are the examples? A sample walk thru of Jeremy dming Greg casting illusion spells from cantrips to 9th level would have been nice. ...
Phantasmal force should for every single reason to be enchantment, cause it's not an illusion, it's messing with the mind which enchantment spells do
That's what I thought too
@@kulloth Like many illusion spells actually, doesn't make much sense
Historically the school's name is illusion/phantasm. It had illusions, phantasms, and shadow magics such as Shadow Magic, Demishadow Monsters, and Shades.
45:00
That's precisely the mindset I had when I made an Illusion Wizard. :D Illusions can be SOOO flavourful, especially for Entertainers.
6 years later I'm still wondering if there's any way to see through the Mislead spell, because it's like the only illusion spell with no clause for noticing it's an illusion. It doesn't even say things pass through it, so is it actually tangible?
As a DM back in the day I would have an evil illusionist cast Improved Phantasmal Force and creat an illusion that a PC has caught on fire. They would have to state that their character is actively attempting to disbelieve. They would then be able to make a saving throw. If they made it they were able to disbelieve successfully. Illusions have been nerfed slightly in newer editions.
Your mic is clipping. Obviously you put a lot into having a sound room. Check levels and/or use a hardware, outboard compressor like an 1176
I love this idea of a Gnomish illusionist theatre of the mind... theatre. I been thinking about this for a little while, funny that you mentioned it.
I think I’d start with a large building, something like an old warehouse, cheap, big and modified to fit the narrative. I’d come up with some kind of snuff or incense that players breath in that causes them to be more susceptible to illusions (granting the illusionist advantage on all rolls to disbelieve). I’d then do something where the illusionist has the customers walk into a lounge, they would be vetted and made sure to be under the influence of the drug and then be asked to walk through a doorway into the illusionists domain, where they can enter the game. I’m imagining a zone of silence that the illusionist operates behind, casting his spells and watching the players from up above, interact with his theatre on the fly. Figments, glamours and maybe even phantoms could be used to slowly remove participants until the winner being the last one alive.
I’m hung up on the fact that illusions don’t do damage. If they could some how knock the participants unconscious, or some other clever way to remove them I’d be up for anything that makes sense.
Haven’t really thought beyond this, I think as a dm I could wing it enough to make work but if a player wanted to do this I’d have to work out more of the mechanics of how people got taken out.
Putting Illusions that take place in a mind or comprise of only sounds aside for a moment.
What we see is light, so a visual illusion must either produce light or interact with the light that exists.
Producing light would in my opinion, create many OP interactions and it would be more of a sub school of Evocation. (a miniature star that produces daylight [bright light])
Interacting with light would in my opinion, produce fewer exploitable options.
Illusions should block light (casting shadows that react to changes in lighting conditions) and create a reflection in a mirror.
A magic that reflects and refracts light that interacts with it, has a mechanic that is simple, consistent and understandable.
As for how it appears when a creature knows it is an illusion I would say it's like a semi silvered mirror.
37:30 referencing how a caster sees his own illusions.
Phantasmal Force, creative illusion to apply a condition.. Make them see a Basilisk where you are, so they avert their eyes. If that doesn't give you Advantage on your strikes, or at least has them swinging at Disadvantage.. I don't know what would.
OMFG! I am trying to get insights into how illusions work, because they are poorly described in the book. And every time he is asked a question that goes to clarification, he just refers to the book, proclaiming that it answers the question.
Fist time my never played before player's wizard casts minor illusion she says "I create the illusion of a piece of cloth in front of the enemy's face"... Well, shit... Cantrip blind spell?
how about the enemy attacks the piece of cloth and wastes an action? if you're using your action you should be able to at least have a chance of getting someone else to waste their action, maybe the cloth illusion doesn't work for that but you should be able to come up with SOMETHING that at least has a CHANCE to effect action economy
@@quonomonna8126 Cantrips are not supposed to have a mechanical effekt or mess with action economy.
@@Accolonian oh, what page of the PHB was that on? if a cantrip can't effect action economy and I'm playing a combat-heavy campaign, the cantrip is useless if it can't effect action economy and therefore a wasted action to cast it and my DM should tell everyone not to bother with minor illusions because he will bypass investigation checks and deny any impact to action economy! See this is what I don't like, people deciding what THEY "think" is realistic or too powerful or unbalanced, but stick to RAW and you'll be fine! I see nothing in the rules about bypassing investigation checks if minor illusion is used in combat and it would specifically say that cantrips are not meant to impact action economy if that were the case.
@@quonomonna8126 Sorry. I am confusing terms. Cantrips are spell group in 5th, that does effects action economy. I am confusing it with Prestidigitation that in earlier editions was described as "doing cantrips".
Still, it's a 1st level unlimited cast spell. If you can use it to force an opponent to spend an action to investigate, then it is too powerful. Luckily, you can't, as I have discovered in the year that has gone since I wrote the comment. The illusion is stationary within a 5 foot cube, so if you create the illusion of a cloth i front of the enemy's face he would probably just go "woah" and move around it as part of his movement. He doesn't have to explore it to avoid it.
But my initial point was that I whised this video had gone into a talk about exploits like this, since that is what I came for.
@@Accolonian I put a crate in front of the halfling rogue to give him cover, does the enemy know the crate is an illusion automatically without having to physically interact with it or make an investigation check?
Interesting, but I wish Jeremy spoke about the Invisibility spell or Greater Invisibility.
Right? One common misconception I've experienced was that Invisibility automatically makes you hidden. My group came to this conclusion because there were so many high level abilities that specified you know the location of invisible creatures in a certain radius, so we took that to mean that you normally didn't know, in addition to the fact that invisibility in previous editions had the spell make you very difficult to notice.
However, Mr. Crawford has since gone on to clarify that invisibility does not automatically hide you, meaning that for anyone without a way to hide with something other than an action, fully disappearing with invisibility becomes a two round set up instead of one round, which really swings the spell's power in terms of using it as a quick escape, as well as the necessity of its counterpart, the See Invisibility spell.
I get that 5e is supposed to be a little loosey goosey in its design on purpose, but I feel part of why people pay for these books is so professional game designers can look to them and say "follow these rules, and things should stay pretty balanced". When I pay for the book but I have to pour through books and tweets and podcasts to learn how things are intended to work, and often the answer you arrive at is "Use your imagination", it feels like a bit of a ripoff. I know I can make stuff up. The point of purchasing a ruleset was to find a balanced way to hem things in so our imagination game doesn't constantly run into the schoolyard unbreakable shield/unblockable attack nonsense.
@@AnExistanceOfNothing Jeremy Crawford does say that the interplay of perception, stealth, hide, hidden and invisibility can't be covered by absolute rules that's why a Dungeon Master brain is required. You don't actually need to hide or be hidden to be hard to find. I get your frustration though.
Brb making a Turkey of the Sea Monster.....at least that's what fisherfolk call it
Don't waste your time, there isn't any useful information in this video.
Jeremy's mic is clipping the entire time and it is obnoxious
Minor Image = Minor Illusion. Even the experts make mistakes sometimes :)
Joseph Rizzo During the Twitch stream, after the break and before the second hour, he admitted he realized his mistake. They said they put up something on the video to let everyone know that.
Seems they forgot...
Daren SF they put it at e beginning of the video for Playtesting. I just decided to comment here for anyone who hadn't seen that yet or the twitch stream
Trickery cleric got love!
I also wish they specified how difficult it is to interact with an illusion. Something as simple as an AC for Major Image would be nice.
I also want to know how these spells interact with skills. If I make a dragon that roars, is there an intimidation check involved? Deception? Performance? As an illusionist, do I need to start spending feats on skill proficiencies so my illusions have their intended effects?
Rather than making these spells more fun, I feel like leaving them so undefined discourages people from playing classes centered around them, and makes more work for the GM to try and figure out how much they should let the spells accomplish. Why get invested in the idea of playing a class that could get your hand smacked with a metaphorical wooden spoon at every turn. It's not like the Fighter has to worry about their extra attacks getting handwaved away.
Could you use the shadow of an illusion to protect a vampire from sunlight?
Salmon for Thanksgiving? How long have you been in Al Queida?
Can we get a new host? Greg Tito never really seems to add anything to the discussion, seems to mostly just serve as a distraction.