Illusions

[Greenfield]

As I said, you can rationalize your way around this pretty easily. The question I raised was whether or not you want to.

(By the way, most spells that affect a creature treat their attended items as part of the creature. That is, Flesh to Stone petrifies the person and their gear. Enlarge Person does the same, as do a lot of other non-damaging spells. So there's already a rules-based explanation for the argument you're trying to raise.

As for a field of grass or a stretch of sand? There are Illusion spelles specific to this, such as Hallucinatory Terrain. Other illusions aren't supposed to go there.

But like I said, you can rationalize a way around a lot of rules. This is just another one.

That being said, if someone attacks one of the "mannequins" in your illusory collective, have it fall down, wounded or killed, in a realistic fashion.

That is, have it react appropriately to the event, and the illusion as a whole can be maintained.

 

[James the Newbie]

Other illusions can go there, the difference is things like illusory terrain don't require constant focus, giving them longivity instead of versatility.

After all there is illusion wall, but your be pretty hard pressed saying you cant create a wall with minor image when there is an example on the WoTC site of creating a building.

Your right about the gear thing though, that is a good point.

You'd still get a will save if you attacked it though. The WoTC site says you auto disbelieve if your attack passes straight through effortlessly, I think the appropriate response bit if for spells such as burning hands or maybe rays and projectiles.

 

[Jimlock]

The spell explicitly states that:

This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you.

Thats ANYTHING you can think of. The limit's of one's imagination is the only limit of the spell... and its volume.

Here's a part from one of my posts from an old (and bloody) thread that might help you make up your mind.

Post No 97:

A vase is an object. A broken vase (in parts) is still a vase as visualized by me. Any object, creature, or force, as visualized by me, has the possibility of coming in as many parts as I want. It's entirely up to the imagination of the caster. The only limit of the spell is its capable volume. Other than that you can "Imagine/Visualize" anything you want in it and call it a force, a creature it or an object... as visualized by you.

PHB p173, under figment:

For example, it is possible to use a Silent Image spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain.

Now a "cottage" is a small simple house, a dwelling, comprised of many objects. A cottage is not a "single object" It has doors windows, a roof... smoke coming out of the chimney...
So... since you can specifically make a cottage with a Silent Image spells, this means that the: visual illusion of an object, creature, or force is not to be deciphered so strictly, cause otherwise a cottage would not have been possible. The real limit of the spell is its volume. Inside that volume you can visualize whatever you want.

Moreover, the rest of the Image-line spells are based on Silent Image, and their text never mentions any changes in respect to what you can do. They only keep on adding senses and alter durations, but the logic behind the visualization remains the same.

 

[Greenfield]

So "Object" equates to "as many objects as i want", if that's how your character visualizes it?

Hmm. Powerful argument. The rules as stated vs a PC's inability to count to one... Powerful argument...

I'll have to think about that one for a nano-second or two.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

So "Object" equates to "as many objects as i want", if that's how your character visualizes it?

Hmm. Powerful argument. The rules as stated vs a PC's inability to count to one... Powerful argument...

I'll have to think about that one for a nano-second or two.

Perhaps"Object" is better conceptualized as "Composite Object". A cottage, while comprising multiple "objects" is a concept as a whole. Adding in a hedge maze in the back and a cow tied to a post by the side would not as likely comprise the image concept of "Cottage-ness". Or perhaps it might.

The spell explicitly states that:

This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you.

Thats ANYTHING you can think of. The limit's of one's imagination is the only limit of the spell... and its volume.

Here's a part from one of my posts from an old (and bloody) thread that might help you make up your mind.

Post No 97:

Illusion spells, as Jimlock has pointed out, are likely the most imaginatively exploitable spell types in the D&D universe. I'd imagine the Creation line of spells and maybe some Charms fall into a similar category. The degree of utility fully depends upon the creativity of the player.

 

[Greenfield]

His selective highlight and lowlight of text tells us the priority in his reading.

"As visualized by you", in his argument, trumps the other stated limits. It's not a valid read of the rules. You can't just take the half of a sentence that you like and ignore the rest.

Want to visualize a cottage? Go for it. Want to fill it with rustic knick-nacks? Sorry, that exceeds the limit of any Illusion that includes the phrase "object, creature or force". It's multiple objects.

Does that mean that you don't get everything you want? Yes, it does. Rules tend to do that.

You can have an illusion of anything you want, anything you can visualize, so long as it fits in the spell volume, and meets the descriptive "object, creature or force". But you can't ignore the "object, creature or force" limitation any more than you can ignore the volume or range limits, no matter what you want to visualize.

Want to visualize a treasure pile? Millions of coins? Personally, I'd allow it, so long as its treated as a single mass. Want a few stray coins scattered around, for realism? Sorry, at that point you're stretching the DM's indulgence. You are unquestionably exceeding the specific limits of the spell.

 

[Dandu]

But isn't a cottage itself composed of several smaller objects?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

His selective highlight and lowlight of text tells us the priority in his reading.

"As visualized by you", in his argument, trumps the other stated limits. It's not a valid read of the rules. You can't just take the half of a sentence that you like and ignore the rest.

Want to visualize a cottage? Go for it. Want to fill it with rustic knick-nacks? Sorry, that exceeds the limit of any Illusion that includes the phrase "object, creature or force". It's multiple objects.

Does that mean that you don't get everything you want? Yes, it does. Rules tend to do that.

You can have an illusion of anything you want, anything you can visualize, so long as it fits in the spell volume, and meets the descriptive "object, creature or force". But you can't ignore the "object, creature or force" limitation any more than you can ignore the volume or range limits, no matter what you want to visualize.

Want to visualize a treasure pile? Millions of coins? Personally, I'd allow it, so long as its treated as a single mass. Want a few stray coins scattered around, for realism? Sorry, at that point you're stretching the DM's indulgence. You are unquestionably exceeding the specific limits of the spell.

I'd not argue with any DM that interpreted the spells this way. However, not all DM's do.

 

[Greenfield]

But isn't a cottage itself composed of several smaller objects?

When you nail two boards together, do they become one object?

I had a lot more, but that actually seems to cover it.

 

[Dandu]

So if the knick-nacks were nailed to the cottage...