D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

So.... about Summon Lesser Demons... my wizard got some great use out of this spell when it was UA and before Xanathar's kinda nerfed it. While I get all the reasons you give a low rating, I feel like it was a very good battlefield control spell.
Back then you could pick what demons you summoned, so taking 8 dretches and placing them so that they surround a BBG was pretty effective. They all do a little damage, restrict movement, get some opportunity attacks... then once the BBG is dead or moves away, then there's a chance that they go a little crazy and start attacking allies, but they're at least predictable (always attack the closest target) AND you can just stop concentrating and they disappear so there shouldn't ever be any danger to you - you can just drop concentration and *poof* - no more danger.
Obviously, it's not as good as some Wall spells and might not last too long, but for that level it's not bad. Plus it does some damage.
So anyways, this spell totally flipped a few encounters for us.

Now that XGTE has nerfed it a bit, I'm not sure if it's still worthwhile, but if you get 8 somethings (33% chance) they still have some battlefield control application since you get to place them. Plus XGTE has gotten rid of their 1st round summoning sickness... I guess one problem would be if you rolled to summon two "CR 1 or lower" demons and your DM decided to be a jerk and give you two CR 1/8 manes.

Downsides: My fellow players hated this spell. Even though it was effective and helped our side, the addition of 8 more creatures to the combat slowed things down too much (even once we put in a macro for it on Roll20). I stopped using it before XGTE's came out and then I promised to never prepare it again in exchange for adding Thunderstep to my spells known.

MooreVol said:

So.... about Summon Lesser Demons... my wizard got some great use out of this spell when it was UA and before Xanathar's kinda nerfed it. While I get all the reasons you give a low rating, I feel like it was a very good battlefield control spell.

Click to expand...

I don't even read UA. When I read Xanathar's I was unaware of what was nerfed and what wasn't. I think it gives you a better perspective when the material becomes official.

I totally agree regarding large quantities of summoned creatures though. I used to summon constantly in years past, but now if I summon, I make sure to keep it low impact on gameplay. It's not all about optimization, it's also about everyone at the table having a good time. If I figure an option might get in the way of that, then I don't choose that option.

Not that illusory reality isnt awsome, but in my experience the majority of what you'd want to do with it can be accomplished with mirage arcane, with the added bonus of mirage arcane continuing to be malliabial while the illusion made real is locked in. For instance, make a stair case up and erase it behind you as you climb to get away from melee attackers. Or use it to create walls that intricately and efficiently cut up the battlefield like a labyrinth, isolating enemies and keeping them isolated till you are ready to deal with them. Alter existing structures to create doors and passages in dungeon walls . Hell, if you want to be really cheap, there's nothing stopping you from just turning the area where an enemy is standing into a deep pond or pool of lava, then pave over it when they fall in so they can't get out, or removing the floor under their feet and dropping them down an illusory mine shaft.

Also treantmonk plz don't take any of my questions as criticisms. I have loved your guides since 3.x and feel a bit starstruck even commenting here. I am so glad your health scare is over.

Langland said:

Not that illusory reality isnt awsome, but in my experience the majority of what you'd want to do with it can be accomplished with mirage arcane

Click to expand...

Mirage Arcane + Malleable Illusions is quite powerful under the right circumstances, since Mirage Arcane can change the tactile properties of the terrain and provides no saving throw, so yes, you could use Mirage Arcane to create a wall, and yes, that wall would be essentially "real". With Malleable Illusions, you can do this any time after casting the original spell (for up to the 10 day duration). Sounds amazing, game breaking even.

However, there are two limitations on this spell, that when combined are pretty dramatic.

First (and most importantly), the rules on spellcasting create a very significant limitation here. Specifically that if you target an area with a spell, and that area is behind total cover, the spell targets the area on the near side of that cover.

Jeremy Crawfod has also clarified that Malleable Illusions can change the properties of an illusion, but does not allow you to move the illusion. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/944013851925737472?lang=en

Since Mirage Arcane does not include the ability to move the illusion, that means you are stuck with your initial targeted area.

This means, if you are about to enter a dungeon for example, you can cast Major Illusion on the outside of the dungeon, but not on the inside, nor could you move the Mirage Arcane inside after entering.

The second is the 10 minute casting time. I mention that second, because you might not realize what a limitation that is if you aren't aware of the first limitation.

So the idea that (and I've heard this multiple times before), "before you start the adventure, simply take 10 minutes and cover the area you are about to adventure in with Mirage Arcane." Simply isn't going to fly, unless the entire area you are about to enter isn't behind total cover, and is in range of sight (the range of the spell is sight), which means you can already see your challenges, and they can see you, and they might do something in that 10 minutes you spend casting Mirage Arcane.

Of course, if you can't see the challenges, because they are beyond range of sight, or are behind total cover (like in the cave, or dungeon, or house), then the Mirage Arcane you cast will not extend into the area that they are in.

So let's see how those limitations affect the implementation:

Langland said:

For instance, make a stair case up and erase it behind you as you climb to get away from melee attackers.

Click to expand...

So first off, I would ask where those enemies were before you started casting the spell? Maybe they came to the area afterwards, which would be fine. Remember, those stairs need to be created somewhere that was targeted by the initial spell casting.

Also, although this could be done, it's limited by action economy. To be more precise, you could create a stair case up and climb it. Then the next round, assuming the attackers haven't followed you, you could erase it. Furthermore, hopefully that staircase leads you somewhere solid and supported, as the spell certainly seems to imply that structures and physical object you create absolutely act like normal objects until removed from the area, so you remove bottom stairs when you are still on upper stairs and...well crash.

So yes, this could work, but a lot of circumstances have to fit just right.

Langland said:

Or use it to create walls that intricately and efficiently cut up the battlefield like a labyrinth, isolating enemies and keeping them isolated till you are ready to deal with them.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is probably the main use that I would have from the spell. Again though, did these enemies come to the battlefield after you cast the spell? That's fine defensively, but if your enemies aren't coming to you...

Langland said:

Alter existing structures to create doors and passages in dungeon walls .

Click to expand...

Ah, here we are, I suspected this is where we were going with this. You aren't the first one to suggest using this spell on a dungeon (or castle, or cave system, etc), but it doesn't work because of the spellcasting rules as I mention. If we ignore those rules, this spell really does break the game, which is probably the hint we should use to wonder if we are missing something.

Now if you are already in the dungeon, and the wall you want to make a door in isn't behind total cover, and you spend ten minutes to cast the spell at that time, yes, you could make a door in the wall, but I'm thinking that's not what you were suggesting.

Langland said:

Also treantmonk plz don't take any of my questions as criticisms. I have loved your guides since 3.x and feel a bit starstruck even commenting here. I am so glad your health scare is over.

Click to expand...

If you mean not to take it as an attack, don't worry, I didn't.

As for criticism, I like criticism. Criticism is how you learn.

As for my health scare, me too!!!

Hope that explains why I'm not as keen on the use of this spell as you are. Don't get me wrong, it's 100% my first pick at level 13, but I'll still anxioiusly be awaiting level 14 for illusiory reality that will allow me to create some "real" illusions without the limits Mirage Arcane has.

As for using Malleable Illusion on a permanent Greater Image, the spell says you have to use your action to cause the Image to move, which could become quite difficult to manage to keep an image around you all the time. I suppose you could rule that a Greater Image that is part of something real (ring, cloak, hat, etc.) moves with whatever it is attached to, but that seems more in house rules territory, depending on the DM.

Hi TM. Can you elaborate a little on how you use the permanent major image rings? I just rolled an illusionist for a campaign that will go to high levels so I'm interested in figuring this out. My read on major image was that it didn't interact with touch so illusionary objects could not be carried or worn. Have you got a trick for that or house rules or does your DM just interpret the spell more liberally?

Treantmonklvl20 said:

Level 14 is the show-stopper I'm waiting for. Action to change permanent Major image rings into whatever I want, bonus action to make it real.

Click to expand...

Or action to cast phantasmal force on yourself and voluntarily fail the save, creating an illusionary object that only you can perceive, then bonus action to make it real, but only for you. Solipsism FTW!

jiriku said:

Hi TM. Can you elaborate a little on how you use the permanent major image rings? I just rolled an illusionist for a campaign that will go to high levels so I'm interested in figuring this out. My read on major image was that it didn't interact with touch so illusionary objects could not be carried or worn. Have you got a trick for that or house rules or does your DM just interpret the spell more liberally? Or action to cast phantasmal force on yourself and voluntarily fail the save, creating an illusionary object that only you can perceive, then bonus action to make it real, but only for you. Solipsism FTW!

Click to expand...

Gadget said:

As for using Malleable Illusion on a permanent Greater Image, the spell says you have to use your action to cause the Image to move, which could become quite difficult to manage to keep an image around you all the time. I suppose you could rule that a Greater Image that is part of something real (ring, cloak, hat, etc.) moves with whatever it is attached to, but that seems more in house rules territory, depending on the DM.

Click to expand...

I have always made certain assumptions regarding "stationary" illusions. I assume that the illusion is stationary relative to something else.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. My illusionist is on a road in a broken down cart. On that cart is a chest that is open, and that chest is empty. My illusionist casts a stationary illusion of coins in the chest. Now the chest appears like it's full of coins right?

Well that depends on relativity. The coins might drift away with the rotation of the earth, or the orbit of the earth, or the orbit of the sun around the centre of the galaxy in an outer spiral arm at 40,000 miles an hour...(insert Eric Idle singing here). Of course we could assume that the fantasy world we are in is completely stationary, and that there isn't even continental drift, so let's take this a step further.

Let's now assume that cart is on a ship. Does the gold drift away with the current? Does it drift in and out of the chest with each wave, does it drift away with the seabed below? Again, that depends on relativity.

Let's now assume the cart is driving down the road. Does the gold drift away with the road beneath? Does it bounce in and out of the chest with the bumps in the road?

Let's now assume we lift up the chest. Does the gold reman where the chest used to be? If so, do we refer to "used to be" as the spot in the cart? In the ship? On the road? In the universe?

The point I'm making is the gold MUST be stationary relative to something, and that something I would suggest should be defined when cast, and usually I would say it's implied when cast.

If you cast an illusion of a rock in a field, I would say the rock is stationary relative to the ground in the field.

If you cast an illusion of a crate on the deck of a ship, I would say the crate is stationary relative to the deck of the ship.

If you cast an illusion of a chest on a cart, then I would say the chest is stationary relative to the bed of the cart.

If you cast an illusion of coins in a chest, then I would say the coins are stationary relative to the chest.

If you cast an illusion of a gemstone on a hilt of a sword, then I would say the gemstone is stationary relative to the hilt it's "attached" to.

If you cast an illusion of a ring on a finger, then I would say the ring is stationary relative to the finger its on.

That said, these are assumptions I've made. I'm not sure if Jeremy Crawford has spoken on the matter. Either way, obviously my assumptions aren't as universal as I thought. I think I better bring this up with my DM and make sure we are on the same page. I see him this weekend for another campaign, I think I'll bring it up then.

Treantmonklvl20 said:

I have always made certain assumptions regarding "stationary" illusions. I assume that the illusion is stationary relative to something else.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. My illusionist is on a road in a broken down cart. On that cart is a chest that is open, and that chest is empty. My illusionist casts a stationary illusion of coins in the chest. Now the chest appears like it's full of coins right?

Well that depends on relativity. The coins might drift away with the rotation of the earth, or the orbit of the earth, or the orbit of the sun around the centre of the galaxy in an outer spiral arm at 40,000 miles an hour...(insert Eric Idle singing here). Of course we could assume that the fantasy world we are in is completely stationary, and that there isn't even continental drift, so let's take this a step further.

Let's now assume that cart is on a ship. Does the gold drift away with the current? Does it drift in and out of the chest with each wave, does it drift away with the seabed below? Again, that depends on relativity.

Let's now assume the cart is driving down the road. Does the gold drift away with the road beneath? Does it bounce in and out of the chest with the bumps in the road?

Let's now assume we lift up the chest. Does the gold reman where the chest used to be? If so, do we refer to "used to be" as the spot in the cart? In the ship? On the road? In the universe?

The point I'm making is the gold MUST be stationary relative to something, and that something I would suggest should be defined when cast, and usually I would say it's implied when cast.

If you cast an illusion of a rock in a field, I would say the rock is stationary relative to the ground in the field.

If you cast an illusion of a crate on the deck of a ship, I would say the crate is stationary relative to the deck of the ship.

If you cast an illusion of a chest on a cart, then I would say the chest is stationary relative to the bed of the cart.

If you cast an illusion of coins in a chest, then I would say the coins are stationary relative to the chest.

If you cast an illusion of a gemstone on a hilt of a sword, then I would say the gemstone is stationary relative to the hilt it's "attached" to.

If you cast an illusion of a ring on a finger, then I would say the ring is stationary relative to the finger its on.

That said, these are assumptions I've made. I'm not sure if Jeremy Crawford has spoken on the matter. Either way, obviously my assumptions aren't as universal as I thought. I think I better bring this up with my DM and make sure we are on the same page. I see him this weekend for another campaign, I think I'll bring it up then.

Click to expand...

That point is pretty important, and it doesn't apply just to illusions... any fixed point spell is impacted.

This has tactical considerations because spells attached to an object now become mobile....

The 'relativism' of the spell location is something the DM needs to work out with the player when a spell is cast and there are different potential concepts of location. Historically, I've always defaulted to using the caster's perception of what is stationary - it is not a choice, but a ramification of their perspective.

Treantmonk - have you looked at the Eberron materials, yet? Anything jump out? Kalashtar telepathy may be a good way to get over language limitations on enchantment spells (DM allowing), Warforged envoys could make interesting wizards (mage armor levels of AC without armor if you can get light armor proficiency, dragonmarks, etc....