Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick!

[Sabeta]

I was going to respond to all the responses to my posts, but frankly, this is once again repeating the same things over and over.

I'm astoundingly surprised you think anyone would ever take you seriously after this post. You have yet to provide even a single word to disagree with the RAW provided in the book, aside from the repeated assertion that "if you can see it, it must be reflective to some degree. Let's just ignore the fact that the rules say that anything will pass through it, including light because it doesn't cast a shadow."

I'm not saying a Mirror is impossible. I'm saying a fully functional mirror is impossible. You can create a static image against the would-be mirrors surface, and as long as you use your action every turn you can change the image that appears in it, but to make a completely functional mirror without something to reflect off of is plainly impossible. Again, read the Sage Advice:

Mike Mearls‏
@mikemearls

Replying to @DaddyDM @JeremyECrawford
wouldn't allow it - too dynamic, requires too many changes moment to moment

The RAW is clear as day. The RAI given by the Devs is clear as day. If you want to leverage more out of the spell do it at your own table, but don't pretend you can come here and pretend as if the RAW is somehow different than what the book says because you're trying to ham-fist your own internal logic into the spell. I mean, if you're just going to casually dismiss our arguments, "because if you google around you might find a thread where it kind of looks like maybe I won from only my point of view because people eventually stopped talking to me" then I think we're done here. It's pretty obvious you have nothing of merit worth adding at this point. Either contribute meaningful discussion or admit you're wrong and walk.

[Zorku]

I'm astoundingly surprised you think anyone would ever take you seriously after this post. You have yet to provide even a single word to disagree with the RAW provided in the book, aside from the repeated assertion that "if you can see it, it must be reflective to some degree. Let's just ignore the fact that the rules say that anything will pass through it, including light because it doesn't cast a shadow."

I'm not saying a Mirror is impossible. I'm saying a fully functional mirror is impossible. You can create a static image against the would-be mirrors surface, and as long as you use your action every turn you can change the image that appears in it, but to make a completely functional mirror without something to reflect off of is plainly impossible. Again, read the Sage Advice:

Mike Mearls‏
@mikemearls


The RAW is clear as day. The RAI given by the Devs is clear as day. If you want to leverage more out of the spell do it at your own table, but don't pretend you can come here and pretend as if the RAW is somehow different than what the book says because you're trying to ham-fist your own internal logic into the spell. I mean, if you're just going to casually dismiss our arguments, "because if you google around you might find a thread where it kind of looks like maybe I won from only my point of view because people eventually stopped talking to me" then I think we're done here. It's pretty obvious you have nothing of merit worth adding at this point. Either contribute meaningful discussion or admit you're wrong and walk.

Do note that in the tweet he says "wouldn't allow it" instead of a more flat "no." He provides a reason not to allow it, but there's no pretense of this going against the rules here.

-

As for threads that discuss this, here's 10 pages of me'n'him being frustrated for a month. Given Vogonjeltz's appearance in this thread maybe that one is finally dead, but I'm not gonna take that for granted. Now stop for a second and assess how ****ty I am for linking that cluster****.

People talk past each other a lot. I'm trying to be more understanding (or rather, I think there's more potential with the people present,) in this thread, but the main person I want answers from is skipping my posts so I don't expect this to go anywhere productive (and only hold onto a very faint hope that it would if I was getting responses...)

[Sabeta]

Given that Minor Illusion is a static image, and the reason that Mearls says he wouldn't allow a Mirror being due to requiring you to update the images being reflected, it follows that an Illusory Mirror isn't actually reflecting anything. It's simply a static image that the Wizard has shaped to look like a reflection. I take SA to be RAI, but in this case it's supported by my understanding of the RAW. Nobody here has managed to produce anything even remotely compelling towards changing that. Segev at the least doesn't seem to be arguing RAW, he's arguing about the physics implications of the RAW being dumb, and pretending that the RAW itself must somehow be wrong as a result.

As for the thread you linked, I ignore that particular style of arguing. I actually disagree with much of what Dr. Samurai has said in this thread, but I'm ignoring it because dissecting an argument line-by-line is bad form. An argument must be taken as a whole, not as individual parts. Each piece of what I say supports each other to build something cohesive, but each line out of context means nothing. Or at least, that's the intent of my writing style.

[BurgerBeast]

Not necessarily. If you think of it as light, and only light, reacts to the image just as if it were an object, by bouncing off of it so that you can see the image, then an image of a mirror would allow you to see a reflection just as a real mirror would.

I don't like to get into the scientific descriptions because I don't think they are necessary, but if I accept this and play along, then you still have a problem. If regular light bounces off of the illusion, then the illusion is materially occupying space. That's the only way anything (including light) can bounce off of it. If it is materially occupying space, then it's not an illusion.

Or maybe it's just some of the light and some light filters through since it is possible (once you investigate or physically interact) to see through the image.

Light doesn't interact with it at all, because it's not materially present. If light interacts with it at all, then it must be materially present. If it is materially present, it's not an illusion.

In that case, think of it like anything else that's just partially transparent or only transparent in some cases, like a window on a bright day when the lighting is much dimmer inside.

It is my position that somewhere in this description, you've made an error. You can't consider an illusion to behave like a window because an illusion is not materially present. But a window is. An illusion will never behave like a real thing because an illusion is not a real thing - it's an image of a real thing.

They appear as a mirror. But if you look through the same window at night when it's well-lit inside, you can see through it easily.

This is because a real thing can respond to the environment by virtue of the fact that it is materially part of the environment. An illusion, by my view, is not.

Doesn't help that he and I are in a thread with a guy that thoroughly rejects illusory reflections.

You're not going to like this, but I'm not sure what "illusory reflection" means. I read it to mean the reflection of an illusion, viewed by looking into a real mirror. But it might mean an illusion created specifically on the mirror to look like a reflection.

Real quick, you get how the illusions that are in someone's mind could convince them that they're seeing a reflection, yeah? Not necessarily anything that they could actually see stuff behind them, but just where they're convinced that they can.

Illusions are not in the observer's mind. If they are, then they are thoughts or hallucinations. An illusion is objectively located at it's location in the real world (i.e. outside the observer's mind), but not physically so. This may be one of the roots of our disagreement.

If you think that the illusion itself behaves in this way, as a phantasm by 2e terms, then we simply disagree about that. I'm not sure that either method is better or worse, having not put a lot of thought into this particular view in this particular context.

[ThePolarBear]

Since it didn't get much play before, what's the platonic form of a mirror 'like'?

I have no idea. *drumroll (well, the "pa tum cha", however is it called)*

Hopefully this one does contain explosive runes.

Well, reaction to Absorb Elements.

Here, have a potion with me. Read the label carefully, it has some very fine prints.

Spoiler

Show

I don't understand how there is a step between detecting the lack of shadows and detecting the illusory nature of the object. You seem to try to explain it in the text I cut but that just makes me more confused about how anyone succeeds at noticing illusions.

The step is the same between seeing a creature that moves but makes no sound and seeing an illusion of a creature that makes no sound and moves.
How can you realize the difference? We know you can, the roll is there. How is however impossible to describe with certainty.
The fact that in our reality a barrel without a shadow would be, for me, an impossible anomaly does not mean that for our characters the same barrel has inextricably to be an illusion. It might, but it is not certain.

You fail to realize the true nature of the illusion. That is, that the object is not a weird object but an actual illusionary image of an object.

If there's a particular point where you think that illusions start to react to moving light sources (probably not casting actual shadows, but doing any number of things you might imagine that could convince a creature that they have 'normal shadows,') then simply state which spells don't have this shadow limitation. I consider most illusion creating spells to be 'a family' so higher level spells can usually do everything that a lower level spell in the family can, and more; If you name just one spell that can do this (and possibly cite the text that justifies that,) I'll know roughly which spells can or cannot.

Keep in mind that i have not committed all the spells to memory.
I would say that there's the cantrip: lowest form of the all around possibilities that illusion can take. It's a category per se, can't cast shadows or create them.

Then again, can you create a stack of logs with Minor illusion, Silent Image or Major Image? Is it an "object"? When should we stop going granular?
For me, here. As i said, for me illusions work "as the caster intended" inside the limits of the spell. All the "images" etc can create shadows, so for a creature to have shadows would be ok.
If a caster wants to keep the illusion going strong, inside the limits of the spell, he has to keep concentration running and use the action to continuously make the illusion seem as real as possible at least for the "Image" spells.
Mirage Arcane interacts with creatures in a limited manner. It would be ok to have it have working mirrors (or reflective surfaces in general), for me.

Quick detail because I had to look it up myself, and because within the spoiler I care not about frivolous bloat: the word for the misdirection you're talking about is ruse. Rouse is when you shake a sleeping person or scare off some birds in a bush.

Thanks for the correction. Rouse as "wake", or "excite". Ruse as "stratagem, ploy"

I was also going for hay on the floor as more of a light covering that keeps the place from getting oily/slick, but a pile of hay in the corner does make some decent sense. The cantrip can't pull off a pile 'o hay at the same time that you make them think you've kept going, but since everybody suggests silent image plus minor illusion for more convincing effects this seems workable (and if you had a few seconds lead you might just make the sound of the opposite door slamming shut before you ducked into the corner and summoned your hiding place.)

These all seem like good uses of SI, but MI only seems useful for adding sounds to SI in most of these cases (which at least thus far I haven't had anyone argue against.)

MI is still a spell that has no concentration. You could have a couple going easily in this situation. That is another plus.

Combat (and anything derived from it,) is the only place where I'm that concerned with the different action types (and even movement speed doesn't really apply outside of combat, because the speed you move while people are swinging weapons around and you don't want to end up short of breath, is really different from sprinting or long distance travel.) Improvising actions within combat is a different beast from the more general improv of puzzle solving and social interactions.

Yep.

That sounds closer to RAI, and closer still to personal rulings than RAW to me.

It's actually all in the first chapter of the PHB iirc. Totally my spin on it however :D

Possibly nothing. It's not real after all.

It is real. It's just not an object. Or a real object.
How real is something that you can possibly experience with all senses?
It's just not what you expect it to be.

How does someone even distinguish "I've never seen it happen" from "it absolutely can't happen"?

In a world where magic exists and we do not know how it works? It's up to the DM.

Hopefully i got everything right as far as quoting goes.

[Dr.Samurai]

Moradin's Beard! there's a lot to quote and reply to!

[Segev]

First off, sorry again for being terse. It's as close to pithy as one with as little wit as I have can come. I appreciate most of what people are writing. Despite somebody questioning how I could expect anybody to take me seriously, I do. Thanks, Zorku, for linking the threads where I have said pretty much everything I would say in response to people in this thread. ...and, sadly, probably will again, when I get more energy and less will to resist replying to specific points with which I disagree.

You can't use a mundane mirror for it though, or at least not as easily. Mundane mirrors need support, and probably need to be somewhere other than where you are standing to get the correct angle.

Eh, even if you want it somewhere you aren't, you can hand it to a mage hand. Heck, I think prestidigitation can create REAL mirror "trinkets." Well, "real" in the sense that they're physical and act like mirrors, even if obviously magical.

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)

If we're going with a spell that I can move or re-shape (I can at least do this with malleable illusions,) then can I make that illusion-scorpion appear to change color under a black light?

Provided you're taking your action to do so, I don't see how you couldn't be allowed to do this. I mean, now you're invoking a 6th level Illusionist class feature meant to do precisely this kind of thing. (Though the scorpion had best be a model, corpse, sculpture, or other object-that-is-not-a-living-or-undead-scorpion, since minor illusion only does objects.)

Given that Minor Illusion is a static image

Major point of contention here: Show me in the spell text where it says the word "static."

Moradin's Beard! there's a lot to quote and reply to!

I know. I would actually count it a favor if you didn't reply poitn-by-point to me, but instead just gave a general rebuttal, or picked out a particular point or two.

Or I could take this to a private conversation if you like. But I really, honestly don't expect to say anything I haven't said at least 5x in the thread(s) Zorku linked.

[Dr.Samurai]

No problem Segev! To answer your question about "turning the lights off", I think the answer must be, as you say, that the table would remain "lit" or observable in the dark. I am contending that light is not how it is seen. I think we already see this in cartoons or animated movies where the protagonist is in a dark woods and sees an illusion cast by a fairy or witch or something, and the illusion of the woman or animal is brighter than it should be, or even glowing almost. I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't think it works this way, but it would be consistent with the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't cast a shadow.

Well, mostly consistent. It does beg the question, I think, of whether a blind man can see a minor illusion.

I'm not sure why you say the wizard can't make something colored. It makes me think that some point is being lost in the mix here. I understand that color is a result of light being absorbed and reflected. But I grant that that is the way we see as well. I am arguing that we don't see illusions the same way we see real objects, and I think that is supported by the text on illusion magic and by Crawford's tweet. And color would fall under that. The ketchup isn't red because it is reflecting back red light. It's red because the wizard is making you see a bottle of red ketchup with magic.

Besides, the images quite clearly only interact with visual spectrum EM, anyway.

Well, I'm contesting that it interacts with the spectrum at all (because it doesn't actually exist), but you're claiming it does, but only part of it. What makes this clear to you? The fact that it is visual I presume?

And I want to be clear on another point that I see being repeated: I don't find mirror reflections overpowered. I started the thread looking for an explanation as to how to make these blinds that you can hide behind, because the issue of perspective, creature sizes and directions confused me on how they would work. I never in a thousand years would have thought we'd be arguing about illusions acting as working mirrors. In fact, I skimmed through one of the other threads looking to see if the blinds were discussed, saw some references to mirrors, and completely ignored it thinking it was a different topic of discussion. I just think it's not the intent of the cantrip, and I think the reasoning isn't strong enough to justify it. It seems like poor taste to me. I don't feel strongly enough about it that it'd be a problem at the table (like I said, someone had used it in another campaign I was in). But, I suppose I take issue mostly with the attitude that is simply must work this way because science. I don't think that's a strong argument when it comes to magic spells.

It appears that you're saying that minor illusion cannot produce a clock with moving hands (which goes against dev tweets.) Is this correct, and did I miss this earlier?

Correct. I haven't seen the tweet, but yeah, the spell doesn't say the image can move, so I would assume the image must be static. That's not necessarily how I'd run it, but it is a large grey area. Since the spell doesn't address it, you now have to determine how much movement is possible. Moving hands on a clock is one thing. What about the waterfall Segev mentioned earlier? That is significantly more movement, and very fluid (obviously). What about that chair hopping in place? Suddenly it's a creature? I think if the spell was intended to allow the illusion to move in any way, it would have described the limits of that movement.

For the sake of clarity: what prevents a wizard from "putting a reflection there?" Not a reflection that exists because of ambient light, but a... you know... illusion.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am saying the wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it. He can make a shiny sword if he wants. But it isn't shining because of light. It is shining because that's the illusion the wizard wants you to see.

A list of examples kind of has to be arbitrary, doesn't it?

On the one hand, a hopping chair needs DM approval. On the other hand, the movement of a waterfall is within the parameter of the spell. It is arbitrary. And has to be, because movement isn't mentioned in the spell. So you're saying it is allowed, but then immediately have to decide what is and isn't allowed. Because the spell doesn't tell you. I think that's because the spell doesn't allow it.

He's already given you a model of how the highlights on items or the shiny bright spot on a bit of polished metal in the sun are the same thing as a reflection. That doesn't make it unsupported, that makes it something that you don't agree with.

The only "image" of a sword that can show a mirror reflection is that of a mirror-polished sword in a mirror. Otherwise, a simple image of a sword will not give a mirror reflection, despite the fact that he is claiming it does. You need a mirror to do that, and an illusion isn't a mirror, even if it looks like one. I'm sorry, but nothing that I've read so far has come close to convincing me that, just by looking like a mirror, an illusion can behave like a mirror.

You seem to implicitly agree that highlights and glare are necessary (or at least, "allowed,") but you disagree that a reflection is allowed. To him, a reflection is exactly the same thing as those other elements, so you've got to provide a more thorough explanation for why it is not.

The highlights and glares are put there by the wizard. They are not a result of the ambient light. That would be inconsistent with that I've been saying.

People can't usually pick out fine details from a bit of light bouncing off of a rough surface. For a wizard that wants to 'fake' this effect, it's basically as easy as a swipe of their mental paintbrush, requiring only a little lighter color that is perhaps skewed slightly yellow/red/blue as is appropriate for the current light sources in the vicinity. One brush stroke. A reflection retains nearly full fidelity for the light, and that means that the wizard has to make hundreds or thousands of strokes of their mental paint brush. They don't just have to hold 5ft3 in their heads, they've got to hold the entire room, and then also distort it.
On a scale from 1-10, how much do you agree with that, and on the same scale, how closely does it match what you thought before reading it?

I don't do well with number scales, but I think this is certainly how Mearles sees it with his answer. And I think I agree. This was certainly one of my problems with the camouflage blinds. There just seems to be too much to keep track of to make the perspectives realistic and accurate.

It's important to note that Mearles response didn't even consider light reflecting from the mirror. He was taking the angle of programming the illusion to operate like a mirror, saying it's too dynamic, with too much going on to pull off. But yeah, it's one thing to imagine an object and create an illusion of an object. It's another to start keeping track of angles, lighting, reflections, perspective, and craft that all into a believable 3D illusion.

Just as I applied the principle of charity for you- when he says that these things have (illusory) reflections, he's not saying that the reflection is perfect.

....

I don't know that any of that matches what he's actually picturing, but because you've asserted perfection instead of asking about it, you don't either.

The reflection is "perfect" in the sense that it is 100% accurate. If it is caused by ambient light and reflects light like any normal object, to the point that it even provides mirror reflections, how can it be missing a vase in the reflection? It is acting just like a normal object. By definition, the reflections are perfect. Exactly as they should be according to the lighting in the room.

I'll turn this into the kind of strong claim you want it to be: "If these images do not have reflections then they cannot deceive the senses into believing something is there that doesn't exist."

I don't know what the disconnect is here. You can make the illusion with reflections on it. But the illusion you make will not lose or gain reflections based on the lighting in the room. This doesn't contradict the text in any way, whereas the claim that light bounces off the illusion contradicts the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, and the tweet that illusions do not cast shadows.

Not very charitable of you.

I'm not sure why. It was said without judgment. The spell becomes more versatile if you can make working mirrors with it. But nothing suggests you can until we get into this conversation about how light and vision works.

And I completely disagree that Minor Illusion becomes godlike or useless based on my interpretation or Segev's.

[Sabeta]

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)

Major point of contention here: Show me in the spell text where it says the word "static."

Illusionist Iris knows better than to rely on an Illusory Mirror because she's prone to showing herself what she wants to see and not what's really there.

Anyway Sergev I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I firmly believe that the RAW very clearly states that things pass through it, and that includes light, as supported by the fact that it casts no Shadows. Anything more than that, and it strains my verisimilitude that something entirely unreal is interacting with the real in a meaningful way. Unless, of course you're using a much stronger spell which is specifically designed for that kind of thing. (or Illusory Reality) A cantrip being on par with 7th level spells seems a bit much to me.

Programmed Illusion, Major Image, Project Image, Silent Image are all Illusion spells that specifically state they can be moved. While Minor Illusion itself doesn't specifically use the word static, it can be inferred that since Illusions tell you when they can be moved, the ones that don't say they can are still or static. I believe the term has been brandied about before in this thread, but assuming the spell can be animated just because the rules don't say that it can't be is Air Bud. (Either that or I've mixed this thread up with that godawful Tenser's Disc thread).

Perhaps it's not RAW to go this far, but that's my justification for why the spell is capable of creating a photo-realistic statue of a man, but not an actual man. The image simply doesn't move. That's what I find immersive about the spell, it's just a simple image or sound and nothing more. It has weaknesses, and if you care that much about its shadows or lighting being slightly off then that's what reveals the Illusion on a saved DC rather than "he just knows".

Creating a mirror doesn't shatter the game, but it does break my immersion. There's nothing there for light to reflect off of, so I don't see why people try to leverage that out of the spell unless they wanted to commit to some kind of munchkin behavior.

[georgie_leech]

I usually think of illusions as hyper-realistic holograms, or the 3d equivalent of a picture. Light very much bounces off of those, but absent particular conditions it won't show a proper reflection. So I'd agree that objects can't mimic a phenomenon like empty space, except for from a very specific angle. Likewise negative space like a hole in the ground or something. But at the same time, I don't see my interpretation leading to a functional mirror.

[BurgerBeast]

I usually think of illusions as hyper-realistic holograms, or the 3d equivalent of a picture. Light very much bounces off of those, but absent particular conditions it won't show a proper reflection. So I'd agree that objects can't mimic a phenomenon like empty space, except for from a very specific angle. Likewise negative space like a hole in the ground or something. But at the same time, I don't see my interpretation leading to a functional mirror.

Are you sure that light bounces off of 3D holograms? This would mean they cast shadows. They might be a light source.

Edit: found a link but not sure how to embed using my phone. I'll link it later.

[georgie_leech]

Are you sure that light bounces off of 3D holograms? This would mean they cast shadows. They might be a light source.

Edit: found a link but not sure how to embed using my phone. I'll link it later.

Fair. Let me instead describe it as a hyper realistic video game model. Depending on the skill of the caster, of course.

[Segev]

No problem Segev! To answer your question about "turning the lights off", I think the answer must be, as you say, that the table would remain "lit" or observable in the dark. I am contending that light is not how it is seen. I think we already see this in cartoons or animated movies where the protagonist is in a dark woods and sees an illusion cast by a fairy or witch or something, and the illusion of the woman or animal is brighter than it should be, or even glowing almost. I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't think it works this way, but it would be consistent with the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't cast a shadow.

It is not "consistent" with it not casting a shadow; the shadow could still be cast. But if that's how you view it, that's fine. I find it a less satisfactory illusion, myself, but *shrug*.

I'll point out that nothing prevents it from bearing a reflection, still. The same magic that makes it have apparent color and brightness can make it have a reflection.

As for the rest, yes, you do contend that it doesn't interact with light at all, and is just seen anyway. I contend, under that circumstance, that there's no reason why it can't bear a reflection nor cast a shadow for exactly the same reason that it's visible in the first place: magic.

[Sabeta]

It is not "consistent" with it not casting a shadow; the shadow could still be cast. But if that's how you view it, that's fine. I find it a less satisfactory illusion, myself, but *shrug*.

I'll point out that nothing prevents it from bearing a reflection, still. The same magic that makes it have apparent color and brightness can make it have a reflection.

As for the rest, yes, you do contend that it doesn't interact with light at all, and is just seen anyway. I contend, under that circumstance, that there's no reason why it can't bear a reflection nor cast a shadow for exactly the same reason that it's visible in the first place: magic.

The problem with that assertion is that the spell effects disagree with you. It's not "It does X because lolmagic", it does that because that's how the magic works. You're adding effects to it because "It's magic, it does whatever it wants to do, rules be damned". At that point, go ahead and make balloon creatures with realistically expanding chests to mimic breathing. Because in your ruling the spell can do almost anything it wants. Adding a component of motion to the spell makes it entirely more powerful than a cantrip is meant to be.

[BurgerBeast]

@Segev

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.

[Dalebert]

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption. The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers. The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it. To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface. It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects. The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations. I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this. This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.

[Sabeta]

People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.

That's not an assumption that's RAW. It's also RAI as per the Sage Advice. It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.

[Daehron]

Didn't make it past the first page before I was banging my head into the desk.

Why do people need to try to prove how clever they are with "mirrors" and "smoke" illusions?

As you pass through the dungeon / area find an opaque object that is about a 5'x5' cube and take a note of it's appearance -- all clearly stated to the DM.

When needed, squat down so you fit inside the 5x5 cube and cast Minor Illusion to appear as a copy of that object. The Int save is basically an observer going "what is that barrel doing there?"

All the hubbub of "I make an illusion of a mirror" is needless complication.

[BurgerBeast]

@ Dalebert: There's a bit to unpack here, for forgive me parsing your text line by line, because I think it will provide some clarity.

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light.

True, but if you allow illusions to reflect light, then you are opening up a bigger can of worms than you may realize. For example, any item for which its function is determined by it's interaction with light can now be created using illusions. The examples that come to mind are lenses and mirrors, and therefore telescopes and microscopes.

People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.

Granted. It is confirmed by JC, but I am happy to concede that this does nothing more than tell us that JC shares the assumption.

The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers.

I disagree. I think this alternative has been put forward, but I reject that explanation as well. For me, it's easy enough to consider illusions to be immaterial. They look like they are there but they are not (edit: materially) there.

The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it.

It is by definition simpler for them to be there (edit: appear there) and not interact with light. This is the explanation I go with.

To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons.

I totally agree. But why stop at "interacts minimally"? Why not "doesn't interact at all"? Simpler.

Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

So the two contentions remain here. (1) This is not simpler, and (2) this leads to a bigger can of worms.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface.

More or less the same objections. As an alternative, rather than a faint force-field, the illusion could just be a faint light-field. It could just be a creation of light in a particular place. This still presents problems (but to a lesser extent), because light interacts with light, which is why I also reject this explanation.

Using real-world physics leads down a rabbit-hole, in my opinion. I prefer to just think: an illusion of a statue looks like it is there, but it's not there - there's nothing there.

It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects.

Again, there's a bit to unpack, here.

You could say that it exists materially and minimally, but this is not a necessity in my view. I find it undesirable as an explanation because I think it introduces new problems.

We can have a metaphysical discussion about what it means to exist but that seems unnecessary. I would say that illusions are not "seen like other objects." I would say they are seen in a different way.

The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations.

So, this brings us back to my original (1), (2), and (3). In order for an illusion to behave like a mirror, it would have to be X different things to X different people, because each person would see something different on the surface of the mirror. Also, the illusion would have to change in real time in response to its environment.

As a counterexample: Could you create the illusion go a puppy that stands in place, but that turns its head to follow the movements of someone (without concentrating to change it)? I would say no. Could you make the puppy appear, to three different onlookers, as thought it was looking at each of them personally? I would say no.

But these are more or less the same demands that would need to be placed on a mirror.

I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this.

I think this is the problem. I don't know exactly how you are thinking about this, but I suspect you are not fully appreciating the complexity required in a fully functional mirror. I doubt that you afford this degree of complexity to all illusions, and if you do, then at some point you are almost certainly violating RAW - this is how it appears to me.

This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.

Again, the size is irrelevant.

That's not an assumption that's RAW. It's also RAI as per the Sage Advice. It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.

I disagree. While I am in the same camp as you (illusions of functional mirrors are not allowed), I reject your explanation more-or-less completely. Illusions do not function in the same way as phantasms, in my opinion.

Didn't make it past the first page before I was banging my head into the desk.

Why do people need to try to prove how clever they are with "mirrors" and "smoke" illusions?

As you pass through the dungeon / area find an opaque object that is about a 5'x5' cube and take a note of it's appearance -- all clearly stated to the DM.

When needed, squat down so you fit inside the 5x5 cube and cast Minor Illusion to appear as a copy of that object. The Int save is basically an observer going "what is that barrel doing there?"

All the hubbub of "I make an illusion of a mirror" is needless complication.

Regardless of the fact that I agree with your conclusions, this is an awful argument, or series of arguments, if they can even be considered arguments. Also, in case you weren't aware, mirrors are opaque.

[Sabeta]

I disagree. While I am in the same camp as you (illusions of functional mirrors are not allowed), I reject your explanation more-or-less completely. Illusions do not function in the same way as phantasms, in my opinion.

It was more to prove a point. On some level the Illusion fools the mind into existing. If it's not planted directly there, then some other explanation will suffice: ie, the weave in that space is twisted in a way that something appears to be where nothing is. Many explanations can work, I'm just showing that there's a clear precedent for Illusions being entirely mental, while there's absolutely nothing in this universe that behaves like what Dalebert says.

Spoiler

Show

inb4 someone now says the 'if the weave can be twisted to see something then it can be twisted to allow reflections' because people still can't read past the "things pass through it"
and the "it doesn't cast a shadow" part.

[Dr.Samurai]

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusion would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.

This is different to the argument I am making, but I agree 100%. (To be clear, I think this falls under the dynamism that Mearles mentions and that BurgberBeast brought up early on and I agreed with. There is simply too much going on for this cantrip to do if you allow reflections.)

[Saeviomage]

I think that in general if a player tries to cast a straightforward illusion of something and they get blindsided by some fatal flaw in the illusion they create, then you've failed as a DM and are actively making the game less fun for no particular reason.

But if they're trying to make a mirror that looks like a mirror? It looks like a mirror. And that means that every visible thing that a mirror does, this illusion does.

If you have to bring out the list of "ways that minor illusion is not like a real thing", then your players can just start rattling that off as a list of ways that they detect illusions without needing to spend actions doing so.

That said, if they're trying to produce a high powered modern telescope using illusions of lenses and mirrors, you can probably feel free to say no on the grounds that it's not an object they are familiar with. Similarly with the invisibility field at the start of this thread: while I personally understand that you can create such an illusion with physical objects in a pretty compelling way (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.html - glasses free 3d), I find it highly unlikely that any wizard has ever seen such a thing.

[Dr.Samurai]

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.

The definition of illusion magic in the PHB tells you explicitly that the illusion is not actually there. How is this an assumption?

The developer tells you explicitly that it doesn't cast a shadow. How is this an assumption?

The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

The simplest way to make an illusion???

What "sort of extremely weak force field" are you using exactly?

Come on, this claim is nonsense. By banking on science to prove your point, you defeat yourself. We all know (rudimentarily) how light works. So, by definition of illusion magic in the book, it can't possibly work the way you're saying it does.

It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects.

By definition you are being deceived into thinking it exists.

The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations.

You can make an image of a mirror. No one is disputing that. But the reflective properties of the mirror aren't there.

Would you argue that you can make an illusion of photochromic lenses and they would change color when exposed to sunlight, and become clear again in the dark?

I think that in general if a player tries to cast a straightforward illusion of something and they get blindsided by some fatal flaw in the illusion they create, then you've failed as a DM and are actively making the game less fun for no particular reason.

I just don't agree that not allowing the reflection to react to light in real time equates to blindsiding the player. The parameters for detection are the same. Touch it or spend an action.

But if they're trying to make a mirror that looks like a mirror? It looks like a mirror. And that means that every visible thing that a mirror does, this illusion does.

It should be pretty obvious that things can look like mirrors without being mirrors themselves.

If you have to bring out the list of "ways that minor illusion is not like a real thing", then your players can just start rattling that off as a list of ways that they detect illusions without needing to spend actions doing so.

The only people claiming that every PC and NPC notices every detail of lighting and shadowing on every object within their field of vision are you and the people that want mirror reflections. No one is auto-detecting illusions without touching them.

That said, if they're trying to produce a high powered modern telescope using illusions of lenses and mirrors, you can probably feel free to say no on the grounds that it's not an object they are familiar with. Similarly with the invisibility field at the start of this thread: while I personally understand that you can create such an illusion with physical objects in a pretty compelling way (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.html - glasses free 3d), I find it highly unlikely that any wizard has ever seen such a thing.

It's an at-will cantrip that allows the wizard to create working lenses and mirrors of any type, presumably. If the player spends the effort in game to experiment, why wouldn't a wizard eventually master this usage of it?

[tieren]

I dislike the dichotomy of it has to be real or it can't possibly be real.

We have lots of examples of incorporeal things being seen on the material plane (like ghosts).

What if the illusions are real but on a different plane, like the ethereal, letting them be seen here but not interacted with?

[Dr.Samurai]

Doesn't the game sort of differentiate when you're creating things or pulling things from other planes? Some spells are conjurations and you're just temporarily pulling stuff from another plane of existence. Some spells let you actually bring something from another plane more permanently and those are called calling spells. Some spells let you actually make a thing, and those are creation spells.

Illusions spells don't say that they do any of those things. Nothing suggests that you are actually crafting something or drawing from another place to create a pseudo-object.

I don't like these dichotomies much either, but if people are going to force them, then let's take it all the way.

I didn't look any of this up so this could all just be BS. I'm going by memory from 3rd edition.

[Segev]

The problem with that assertion is that the spell effects disagree with you. It's not "It does X because lolmagic", it does that because that's how the magic works.

Er, no. You're making a circular argument here. "It does this, but not that, because that's how the magic works. I know that's how the magic works, because it does this, but not that." You'd need the spell actually saying, "It does this, but not that," to claim "that's how the magic works."

All the spell says is that it makes an image that doesn't produce light, sound, or any other sensory effect. It says nothing about not producing reflections or shadows. It says nothing about being static (though somebody's already claimed it does in this thread, and I corrected them, but haven't noticed a response yet acknowledging that; this could be me missing it, though).

You're adding effects to it because "It's magic, it does whatever it wants to do, rules be damned".

I'm really not. It makes an image of an object. You're the one insisting that it does this purely by magic. I'm asserting that if it makes the image with the limitations you describe by magic, it makes the image as I describe it by magic, since the image as I describe it is fully within the RAW of the spell. To prove otherwise, you'll have to show me where in the spell I am adding something that is forbidden.

Here's a hint how to do that: If I were claiming that the image must include a sense of temperature, because infra-red is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and thus is part of the image, I'd be wrong because warmth is one of the other senses that is forbidden: touch. That is covered in the spell as something it cannot do. If I claimed that the spell could create a spinning spiral-disk that required a Wisdom save to avoid being fascinated and unable to look away, I'd be wrong because that's describing a mechanical effect that is not a part of being an illusion that looks, visually, like an object. (Whether a skilled hypnotist could use an illusory focus to put somebody under is a matter for some other thread.)

At that point, go ahead and make balloon creatures with realistically expanding chests to mimic breathing. Because in your ruling the spell can do almost anything it wants. Adding a component of motion to the spell makes it entirely more powerful than a cantrip is meant to be.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't rule it out as possible. But I fail to see where you're relying on text to support this assertion. It sounds more like you're adding text that isn't there to support your preconceived notion of what is "appropriate" for it to do, without regard to what the text actually says. Nowhere in the text does it say the image is in color, for example, so I could use your arguments to say that the image must be black-and-white only. And that you're adding text to make it more powerful than it's intended to be and have it "do whatever it wants" if you insist that it can be in color.

@Segev

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.

Does a real mirror, sitting in the middle of a room, presuming no physical force is exerted on it in a fashion that would cause it to topple, break, or move, "change in response to its environment, independently of its creator?"

Does it change over time?

Does it appear differently to multiple observers at the same time?

If so, I contend that the ways in which it does so are consistent with how an image of said mirror should do so. If not (which is more in line with what I'd assert), I'd say the illusory image of the mirror isn't, either, even though it bears reflections and casts shadows appropriate to the environment in which it exists.

Personally, I don't think its reasonable to assert that two people seeing different reflections in a mirror requires it to appear differently to different people; they're just observing it from different angles. Or would you refuse to allow an illusion of a statue of a Halfling to appear differently to somebody standing behind it than somebody standing in front of it? Would it have to present the same facing to all observers, from all angles?

That's not an assumption that's RAW.

No, it isn't. The RAW simply state that it's an image that produces no light, no sound, and no other sensory stimuli. Anything else is not RAW. To make the claim that your assertion is part of the RAW, you must show that your assertion is defined by those criteria, and that anything violating your assertion violates those criteria.

It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."

It's entirely exasperating that you assume that a spell which calls out that it creates a sensory effect solely in the mind of a single observer obviously is no different than an effect which says nothing about creating false sensory impressions that only exist in observers' minds.

Does creation "obviously" work just like phantasmal force, too? The objects exist only in observers' minds, and their belief in them is so strong that they telekinetically affect themselves and their environment? It's "hilarious" that you'd think otherwise, just because creation never mentions that.

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.

If you're admitting to it, sure. I think, however, you're more just unwilling to try to explore logic other than that which supports your position. As evidence, I point out that I've taken every premise offered and examined it to the most logical conclusion I can to illustrate why I think those other than the one I support either don't fit within the RAW or lead to paradoxical or silly outcomes...or (in the case of "it's magic, so it doesn't need to interact with light") why it doesn't preclude reflections or shadows.


I keep referencing the RAW: it's an image of an object which produces neither light nor sound nor any other sensory stimuli. I have, previously, stated several times that "other sensory stimuli" must mean "other than those previously listed," so must mean "other than sound, light, or being an image." I've also defined "image" as "all visual stimuli," because anything else seems to me to be a rather arbitrary distinction from which we cannot draw conclusions about what is or is not included. As evidence of this, I've challenged people to define what is and is not part of an "image" that would be considered "visual stimuli" without resorting to a list-based categorization.

Note that the spell excludes, by list, one specific item that would otherwise be part of it being "an image:" light generation. Which is further evidence that, if something that is part of that visual description of the object is to be excluded from it being "an image," it would be listed in the spell.

This is why I am firm in my statement that it is those who wish to apply restrictions that are not in evidence in the text of the spell are the ones adding things to the spell that aren't there.

[Zorku]

Given that Minor Illusion is a static image,

I don't think you've got full buy in on that claim. Saying that "the 5ft cube that the illusion occupies is stationary," would be much more appropriate as a "given."

and the reason that Mearls says he wouldn't allow a Mirror being due to requiring you to update the images being reflected, it follows that an Illusory Mirror isn't actually reflecting anything. It's simply a static image that the Wizard has shaped to look like a reflection. I take SA to be RAI, but in this case it's supported by my understanding of the RAW. Nobody here has managed to produce anything even remotely compelling towards changing that. Segev at the least doesn't seem to be arguing RAW, he's arguing about the physics implications of the RAW being dumb, and pretending that the RAW itself must somehow be wrong as a result.

I'm not confident that this is actually his position. I suggest you ask him how accurately you have described it, so we can be sure.

As for the thread you linked, I ignore that particular style of arguing. I actually disagree with much of what Dr. Samurai has said in this thread, but I'm ignoring it because dissecting an argument line-by-line is bad form. An argument must be taken as a whole, not as individual parts. Each piece of what I say supports each other to build something cohesive, but each line out of context means nothing. Or at least, that's the intent of my writing style.

If something is out of context you should say so, and point to what the context is as well as how that changes the meaning.

The degree of quibbling there was excessive, but if you can't break an argument down into bullet points then it's probably actually an emotional appeal, and I don't appreciate being manipulated like that.

You're not going to like this, but I'm not sure what "illusory reflection" means. I read it to mean the reflection of an illusion, viewed by looking into a real mirror. But it might mean an illusion created specifically on the mirror to look like a reflection.

I actually rather like that you've taken the time to ask. When I use that term I'm talking about the second thing that you described.

Illusions are not in the observer's mind. If they are, then they are thoughts or hallucinations. An illusion is objectively located at it's location in the real world (i.e. outside the observer's mind), but not physically so. This may be one of the roots of our disagreement.

From the Schools of Magic box on PHB p 203: "Illusions spells deceive the senses and minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

Illusions can be in the observer's mind. You've got a good case for the low level illusions not being in a creature's mind, but that doesn't seem to be what you were arguing. I would still like a yes or no answer though. Can you wrap your head around the idea of an illusion in a creature's mind, where they think that there is a mirror there? Where if you asked them "does it have a reflection" they would say yes, even without any actual experiences of seeing things reflected in that mirror? Regardless of the text of the book, does this make sense as a concept?

If you think that the illusion itself behaves in this way, as a phantasm by 2e terms, then we simply disagree about that. I'm not sure that either method is better or worse, having not put a lot of thought into this particular view in this particular context.

I'm not entirely familiar with phantasms from 2e. Is there anything I should know other than the "image in a creature's head" concept?

I have no idea. *drumroll (well, the "pa tum cha", however is it called)*

Typically people spell it "Ba dum tss."

Spoiler

Show

The step is the same between seeing a creature that moves but makes no sound and seeing an illusion of a creature that makes no sound and moves.
How can you realize the difference? We know you can, the roll is there. How is however impossible to describe with certainty.
The fact that in our reality a barrel without a shadow would be, for me, an impossible anomaly does not mean that for our characters the same barrel has inextricably to be an illusion. It might, but it is not certain.

You fail to realize the true nature of the illusion. That is, that the object is not a weird object but an actual illusionary image of an object.

What I'm not getting is how you ever get from point A to point B. If you're in a world where maybe some shadowless shapechanger might have turned into a barrel, or it might be an illusion, and you wave your torch around and confirm that there's no shadow, then aren't you still stuck with "maybe it's an illusion, or maybe it's a shape changer"? Maybe "I feel like it's an illusion," happens sometimes and not others, but what's that got to do with knowing it's an illusion?

I suspect that what you really mean here is something along the lines of "the DM decides if you pick up some more specific details that you can know in this world, even if we don't describe what they are," but that's really different from what you've actually written, and as per above a suspicion doesn't get me to knowledge.... so, is that what you mean?

Keep in mind that i have not committed all the spells to memory.
I would say that there's the cantrip: lowest form of the all around possibilities that illusion can take. It's a category per se, can't cast shadows or create them.

Then again, can you create a stack of logs with Minor illusion, Silent Image or Major Image? Is it an "object"? When should we stop going granular?
For me, here. As i said, for me illusions work "as the caster intended" inside the limits of the spell. All the "images" etc can create shadows, so for a creature to have shadows would be ok.
If a caster wants to keep the illusion going strong, inside the limits of the spell, he has to keep concentration running and use the action to continuously make the illusion seem as real as possible at least for the "Image" spells.
Mirage Arcane interacts with creatures in a limited manner. It would be ok to have it have working mirrors (or reflective surfaces in general), for me.

DMG has got some description of objects as 'inanimate discrete things' so I think the pile of logs is in, but as best as I can tell the minor illusion cantrip is trying to limit you to the kind of things that you could carry, even if you had to be a giant to lift it- so boulders yes, puffs of smoke no.

For me, a mirror in the distance that has a rather static image on it, and seems to jitter when you move around, would probably be convincing enough for anyone that's not taking a moment to study what they see in the reflection, and this seems like the kind of thing that's RAI. Actually using an illusory mirror as a tool for seeing things, doesn't fit any model of illusion magic that I actually wish to implement. If you can conjure up a flat image that actually has the kind of depth that you get with a mirror then to me you ought to be able to conjure up a mirror showing that same space from the same angle at an entirely different position, and if we take the frame off of that and instead slap a doorway around it then there's a paper thin line left between being able to create phantom pits and holes through walls.

MI is still a spell that has no concentration. You could have a couple going easily in this situation. That is another plus.

Not quite. "The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again."

It is real. It's just not an object. Or a real object.
How real is something that you can possibly experience with all senses?
It's just not what you expect it to be.

The way quotes work here makes this messy, but if I'm recalling the wording correctly, you seem to be declaring that illusions are real.

If the case of the minor illusion crayon wall your only sense that can experience it is sight, and sort of touch if you count not experiencing it in the apparent location as being among what your senses are telling you.

It's possible that we're falling into one of the many pitfalls of talking about what's possible that I warned you about, but without some clarification of what we're even talking about anymore I think that this particular line of questions is turning into weird semantics without any real substance.

In a world where magic exists and we do not know how it works? It's up to the DM.

While I'm alright with that reasoning more broadly, I don't think that these kinds of metaphysical questions even have answers when the DM "says so." It seems like if we start with "you don't know that it's not a real thing made by magic you don't know about," then it's cheating to flip over to "you know that it's a real thing made by magic." The foundations of logic don't really seem like good play-space for the DM to have to make rulings in.

So... does it screw up your position if I move the DM fiat back to the front, where the DM says if you know (or rather that at least some people in the world know,) that this is or isn't something magic can do, before we get to the question of "how do you know that"?

First off, sorry again for being terse. It's as close to pithy as one with as little wit as I have can come. I appreciate most of what people are writing. Despite somebody questioning how I could expect anybody to take me seriously, I do. Thanks, Zorku, for linking the threads where I have said pretty much everything I would say in response to people in this thread. ...and, sadly, probably will again, when I get more energy and less will to resist replying to specific points with which I disagree.

Eh, even if you want it somewhere you aren't, you can hand it to a mage hand. Heck, I think prestidigitation can create REAL mirror "trinkets." Well, "real" in the sense that they're physical and act like mirrors, even if obviously magical.

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)

Moving a mage hand has some action economy tied to it, and somebody could knock that mirror out of the sky... but I don't think these are really the kind of distinctions that people strongly opposed to mirrors are worried about.

I might as well pry into how far you think the cantrip can go though... so,
Let's say that you're in a room and there's a decent sized mirror on the wall. If you wanted to create an illusory duplicate of that mirror, that shows the same reflection as the real mirror, could you? Like if I go stand in front of the real one and start applying a disguise, somebody standing in front of the illusory mirror would have the same view that I do, instead of seeing themselves like in a normal mirror.

Because these phantom images don't actually interact with light, I don't see a good reason why this can't be done.

Correct. I haven't seen the tweet, but yeah, the spell doesn't say the image can move, so I would assume the image must be static. That's not necessarily how I'd run it, but it is a large grey area. Since the spell doesn't address it, you now have to determine how much movement is possible. Moving hands on a clock is one thing. What about the waterfall Segev mentioned earlier? That is significantly more movement, and very fluid (obviously). What about that chair hopping in place? Suddenly it's a creature? I think if the spell was intended to allow the illusion to move in any way, it would have described the limits of that movement.

Strictly speaking it does describe the limits of that movement: the illusion has to fit in a 5ft cube.

The text isn't actually so clear about what kind of movement is allowed, but silent image seems to recognize that there is a distinction between movement of the area of effect and animation of the phantom image within it, so there's room to interpret.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am saying the wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it. He can make a shiny sword if he wants. But it isn't shining because of light. It is shining because that's the illusion the wizard wants you to see.

You seemed to have crossed over to denying that possibility, but it's good to see that you're not actually defending such a position. Thanks for clearing that up.

On the one hand, a hopping chair needs DM approval. On the other hand, the movement of a waterfall is within the parameter of the spell. It is arbitrary. And has to be, because movement isn't mentioned in the spell. So you're saying it is allowed, but then immediately have to decide what is and isn't allowed. Because the spell doesn't tell you. I think that's because the spell doesn't allow it.

So the larger picture of what you're saying is "all of these things are stupid/too complicated, and it's better if we go with the narrowest definition of what has been provided"?

I've got the same response to a couple of elements in succession, and I'm stuffing them inside of a spoiler in hopes that you'll be able to respond to all of them in one go. It's an "I don't understand" situation, so if there's some major difference feel free to break these up like normal, but I -think- they're going to get the same answer.

Spoiler

Show

The only "image" of a sword that can show a mirror reflection is that of a mirror-polished sword in a mirror. Otherwise, a simple image of a sword will not give a mirror reflection, despite the fact that he is claiming it does. You need a mirror to do that, and an illusion isn't a mirror, even if it looks like one. I'm sorry, but nothing that I've read so far has come close to convincing me that, just by looking like a mirror, an illusion can behave like a mirror.

"A wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it" (A) and "A wizard can place a reflection upon their illusions" (B) seem to be the same statement to me. You said A just a minute ago, and you seem to be saying that B isn't possible now, but I don't "get it."

The highlights and glares are put there by the wizard. They are not a result of the ambient light. That would be inconsistent with that I've been saying.

So the highlights and glares are put there by a wizard. A reflection is put there by the wizard.

What's different when I say the second phrase? "A wizard did it" seems to be our explanation in both cases, and I'm not getting why a wizard can do one but not the other.

I don't do well with number scales, but I think this is certainly how Mearles sees it with his answer. And I think I agree. This was certainly one of my problems with the camouflage blinds. There just seems to be too much to keep track of to make the perspectives realistic and accurate.

It's important to note that Mearles response didn't even consider light reflecting from the mirror. He was taking the angle of programming the illusion to operate like a mirror, saying it's too dynamic, with too much going on to pull off. But yeah, it's one thing to imagine an object and create an illusion of an object. It's another to start keeping track of angles, lighting, reflections, perspective, and craft that all into a believable 3D illusion.

Alright, good to establish that. If I can pin down what the model is in Segev's head then maybe we can figure out how to stop talking past each other.

The reflection is "perfect" in the sense that it is 100% accurate. If it is caused by ambient light and reflects light like any normal object, to the point that it even provides mirror reflections, how can it be missing a vase in the reflection? It is acting just like a normal object. By definition, the reflections are perfect. Exactly as they should be according to the lighting in the room.

Because a wizard had to put it there, and it's pretty hard to capture every single detail in a room full of furniture. We haven't established that Segev doesn't think a wizard put it there. You seem to feel like that's a natural conclusion to some question you posited in his direction, but as far as I can tell he's only been saying that the absence of anything that could ever pass as a reflection negates the possibility of illusions deceiving a player, and ruins gameplay balance by bypassing the actual investigation check.

As with everything in these threads, it takes a lot of work to get a straight answer to "what do you think?" and you've got to steer a little to the left and then a little to the right to actually be sure that the answer means what you thought it did.
...but I feel like I'm getting close.

I don't know what the disconnect is here. You can make the illusion with reflections on it. But the illusion you make will not lose or gain reflections based on the lighting in the room. This doesn't contradict the text in any way, whereas the claim that light bounces off the illusion contradicts the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, and the tweet that illusions do not cast shadows.

Based on changes to the lighting in the room (for cases where the spell or a class feature allows changes,) the wizard adds or removes reflections from their illusion.
Aside from matters of this being too complex, do you have any other problem with this?

I'm not sure why. It was said without judgment. The spell becomes more versatile if you can make working mirrors with it. But nothing suggests you can until we get into this conversation about how light and vision works.

It's not a matter of judging or not, it's a matter of selecting the worst interpretation with the greatest attention placed on ancillary flaws. I'm saying that your criticism isn't appropriate for the underlying concept, but rather the rash and somewhat contorted version of it that you've found easiest to combat.

"The spell becomes more versatile" How much more versatile? In what way does this threaten game balance?

And I completely disagree that Minor Illusion becomes godlike or useless based on my interpretation or Segev's.

If you think that's something to disagree with then you've missed the point. Did you at some point in this thread, say that "Segev is trying to make the spell too powerful"? If yes, then that's axiom number one (and if you say no then I'll eventually dig through the thread and pull up where you said that.) Has Segev said that illusions are powerless if you're correct? Also yes. Axiom 2 is in place. You're saying 'too stronk,' he's saying 'useless garbage.'

There you go. That's all there is to it. I probably have to explain some other element of why I presented it that way, but I won't know until you elaborate on what you think was wrong with it.

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption. The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers. The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it. To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface. It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects. The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations. I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this. This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.

Aside from a whole slew of objections that have come up in this thread, I've got just one situation to ask you about:

When you physically interact with an illusion or succeed an investigation check vs the caster's spell save DC it becomes faint to you.
Now, picture two creatures that can see the same illusion. One of them succeeds on an investigation check and doesn't share this information with the other creature in any way (the key thing here is that the other creature does not know the illusion is fake.) Is a different amount of light passing through the illusion now, and if so why doesn't the other creature see this? Can you even conceive a mechanism for making sense of this, if it's really just about how strongly the illusion interacts with light?

Doesn't the game sort of differentiate when you're creating things or pulling things from other planes? Some spells are conjurations and you're just temporarily pulling stuff from another plane of existence. Some spells let you actually bring something from another plane more permanently and those are called calling spells. Some spells let you actually make a thing, and those are creation spells.

Illusions spells don't say that they do any of those things. Nothing suggests that you are actually crafting something or drawing from another place to create a pseudo-object.

I don't like these dichotomies much either, but if people are going to force them, then let's take it all the way.

I didn't look any of this up so this could all just be BS. I'm going by memory from 3rd edition.

5th only seems to make the "calling" distinction for summoned creatures, because native vs foreign has a different behavior per the banishment spell.

Aside from that, this stuff is mostly left untouched. I think that's an intentional feature, so that one DM will say that you're making strange spectral things in the ethereal plane somewhat-detected by creatures in other planes, while another will say that you're making holograms, and another still will say that when you 'see' an illusion it uploads a computer virus to your brain (probably not using those same words...) that makes you think there's a proper object/phenomena in that space.

Seems like that was a design goal in this edition, but maybe that's just forum ideas that took root in my head.

e: I decided to look up how holograms work thanks to some of the chatter in this thread, and I want to kind of bring up funhouse illusions again. For the people constructing these things there are five or a dozen different sorts of ways that they craft these illusions, but they mostly set them up under the right conditions so that the people going through the house all see similarly convincing images. The classic Scooby Doo method of
having a darkish room,
a pane of glass (imperfect mirror,)
and a more brightly lit person round the corner
is probably the first things that comes to mind (provided that you know enough about illusions to summon forth any mechanical example,) but you tend not to know very much about what distance somebody has to be standing away from that to find it convincing, and a lot of people won't actually realize how hard it is to do that in an open field at noon.

That right there is what most people think of as a hologram, but it's not a hologram. A hologram is this sort-of-3d-picture, that works just like a picture, except that it's more like 2 pictures interacting with each other. That probably sounds confusing, but for physics reasons it is as if you have two pictures with different light sources, and you only see the stuff where those pictures agree, which gives you that sense of depth. You usually have to look through film* in order to see this with the whole sense of depth thing, which kind of has exactly the behavior we want for the lower level illusion spells: 5ft cube acts like holograph film on each surface, but once you walk up into that space you're not looking through the film anymore. Our game space is more granular than that, but this seemed like a neat coincidence.
*You can also do holograms on a mirror like surface or project onto a surface, which would make this conversation a terrible mess, so let's ignore that.
**I've intentionally made this in the lowest sci kind of description I could manage, so it's missing lots and lots of important details for how holograms actually work.

I would not want to actually treat illusions like holograph images, because this opens up that idea of simple illusions that take elements away from a scene (illusory pits and holes through walls, etc.)

Also, holograms you've ever interacted with were probably limited color or low quality, because you need vastly higher resolution film in order to store this sort of 3d information, and that we tend to record these things with lasers, but lasers only tend to use one or a few wavelengths of light. The more complex you want this the better raw materials are required, and I -think- you have to do more complex math to correct for how light bends through the medium.

[BurgerBeast]

Does a real mirror, sitting in the middle of a room, presuming no physical force is exerted on it in a fashion that would cause it to topple, break, or move, "change in response to its environment, independently of its creator?"

It does not topple, break, to move. That is not what I mean.

Imagine that the reflective face of a mirror is a 2D bitmap or a television screen, for the purpose of analogy. As the observer moves, the 2D image on the "screen" of a real mirror changes.

Does it change over time?

Yes, provided that the angle of the observer changes, the 2D face must change. If the observer blinks, the "screen" must mimic the blink. How does an illusion know that the observer blinked?

Does it appear differently to multiple observers at the same time?

Yes. If Bob stands 5 feet back and 10 feet to the left of the mirror, and Joe stands 5 feet back and 10 feet to the right, and they both look into the mirror, Bob will see Joe as the 2D image. Joe will see Bob. These are different 2D images.

If so, I contend that the ways in which it does so are consistent with how an image of said mirror should do so.

Said mirror, yes, but not an illusion of a mirror.

If not (which is more in line with what I'd assert), I'd say the illusory image of the mirror isn't, either, even though it bears reflections and casts shadows appropriate to the environment in which it exists.

Then I really don't think you're properly considering the function of a mirror.

Personally, I don't think its reasonable to assert that two people seeing different reflections in a mirror requires it to appear differently to different people; they're just observing it from different angles.

No, this is not how a mirror works. The surface 2D image must in fact be different.

Or would you refuse to allow an illusion of a statue of a Halfling to appear differently to somebody standing behind it than somebody standing in front of it? Would it have to present the same facing to all observers, from all angles?

This is not even close to the same thing.

[BurgerBeast]

I actually rather like that you've taken the time to ask. When I use that term I'm talking about the second thing that you described.

Then it is indeed a weird thing to reject.

From the Schools of Magic box on PHB p 203: "Illusions spells deceive the senses and minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

I don't think this presents any problems to my position. I think an illusion must be one or the other. It is either there, in the room, or it is in the mind of a creature, but not both. To my mind, the litmus test is whether multiple people can see the same illusion. If they can, that's because it is objectively there in the room. If they can't then it is in the mind of one person.

Illusions can be in the observer's mind. You've got a good case for the low level illusions not being in a creature's mind, but that doesn't seem to be what you were arguing.

I honestly don't remember what I was arguing at this point. I do think that low level illusion spells are objectively there in the location they are cast.

I would still like a yes or no answer though. Can you wrap your head around the idea of an illusion in a creature's mind, where they think that there is a mirror there? Where if you asked them "does it have a reflection" they would say yes, even without any actual experiences of seeing things reflected in that mirror? Regardless of the text of the book, does this make sense as a concept?

Absolutely. This is the 2e concept of a phantasm. It exists in the mind of the observer and cannot be detected by others.

I'm not entirely familiar with phantasms from 2e. Is there anything I should know other than the "image in a creature's head" concept?

Precisely. From the passage you quoted, it's the last part: "the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." That is a 2e phantasm.

[Zorku]

It does not topple, break, to move. That is not what I mean.

Imagine that the reflective face of a mirror is a 2D bitmap or a television screen, for the purpose of analogy. As the observer moves, the 2D image on the "screen" of a real mirror changes.

With an actual mirror when you move the mirror doesn't change (except for the bit that reflect you, but I'm talking about everything else.) You just step into a space that was already getting a different image, and that's got very little to do with the mirror changing.

So, you seem to also be using the mental paint brush idea (confirm/deny?) but if this stuff isn't really light, you should be able to make something that sends different fake-light in different directions. You can and probably still should reject this on grounds of it being too complex, but in the landscape of ideas this notion exists and doesn't require any updating or prediction of movement from the wizard.

Just for kicks, if an illusionist can make a part of their illusion that looks different at different angles, and complexity isn't a problem, do you think there's still a problem here?

Yes, provided that the angle of the observer changes, the 2D face must change. If the observer blinks, the "screen" must mimic the blink. How does an illusion know that the observer blinked?

Why does it have to mimic blinks? People don't actually notice drastic changes that happen while they blink. That's the basis of a ton of stage magic.

No, this is not how a mirror works. The surface 2D image must in fact be different.

It's kind of hard to keep track of when you're talking about real mirrors or illusory mirrors, with the way that quotes get clipped, but I think this bit is illusion, and I've got a question for you:
If there's just one image that is all of the things you see at every angle all melded together, but all of that is invisible unless you are standing at the right angle, then that ought to work conceptually, right? I'm not asking if this is something the spell says that you can do, I'm just posing it as an idea. There's not a mechanical problem with that, right?

This is not even close to the same thing.

I'm not going to argue that the statue vs the mirror are the same things, but I do want to know if you put any thought into why Segev thinks that they are comparable. Do you have any idea how to actually explain what the difference is and why it matters?

I don't think this presents any problems to my position. I think an illusion must be one or the other. It is either there, in the room, or it is in the mind of a creature, but not both. To my mind, the litmus test is whether multiple people can see the same illusion. If they can, that's because it is objectively there in the room. If they can't then it is in the mind of one person.

It directly contradicts what you said.
You: "Illusions are not in the minds of creatures."
PHB: "illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

As for what you think, that's nice and all, but most of the people here are arguing about what's written in the book. The book doesn't actually specify with a lot of illusions, so we don't even know for sure if it's necessarily got to be one or the other.

Absolutely. This is the 2e concept of a phantasm. It exists in the mind of the observer and cannot be detected by others.

I'm not so sure that the 2e version carried all of the elements I described. Did any part of my description, other than "it is in the creature's mind," factor into you classifying it as a phantasm?

I'm much more concerned about when somebody is looking at a boring green cube, sees where it is positioned, how large it is, some markings on the surface, but then insists that this is a plate with a banana on it. There's nothing there. There's a boring green cube in their head, but once it gets to "is this a banana?" something else happens.

That might be some phantasms, but I really doubt it is phantasms in general.