Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick!

[BurgerBeast]

* I haven't had time to proofread this. Sorry. (It's been edited, now.)

So, this is getting away from us really quickly. If we really want to make progress we will need to slow it down and focus on the real issues of disagreement that are most fundamental.

The best way I have to explain this is to use a sort of computer programming example (I am not a computer programmer, so this analogy may have problems, but the broad strokes, I hope, will serve to illustrate what I mean).

In the old days of computer programming, it was hard to create in-game mirrors. This is because they had to program the mirror-function into the mirror object itself. As a result, creating a mirror was difficult. The mirror had to be a complex object that had its own code. If the player-controlled character could never enter the field of the mirror’s reflection, then it was easier, because you could more or less just draw a room on the opposite side of the mirror and have the mirror be transparent, impenetrable glass. But if you wanter wanted the player-controlled character [edit: to be able to be viewable in the mirror], it would be harder. And if you had moving elements in the environment, or enemy mobs, or NPCs, it would be even harder. To me, this is the sort of position I am advocating. A mirror of this type is degrees more complex than a box or other object.

But in more modern programming, you can instead build an environment. Into this environment, you do not need to program the entire function of a mirror into the mirror itself. You can just assign a property, such as “mirror reflectiveness” to the object, and the coded environmental lighting effects can more or less virtually reflect witin within that environment. To me, this is the sort of position you are advocating. The problem I have with this is that, the illusion is not a real part of the environment, and so it cannot have a property like this that is capable of interacting in this way.

Spoiler: Responses to you

Show

Why? I know you give a sentence meaning to explain why just after this, but I want to stop here, because this is the fundamental claim you're making with which I disagree.

Because the caster has to create this illusion. And the information required, by the illusion, to change in this way cannot be provided to the illusion.

If you stand in front of an illusion of, say, a miniaturized Statue of Liberty, and you move to stand behind her, what you see changes. But, crediting you with more intellectual honesty than I do Vogonjeltz, I don't think you'd assert that this was a problem.

No, this is not what I mean at all. What I am saying is that, in this case, the illusion is not changing. In this case, the illusion is 3D, and from whatever angle you look at it, it will always look the same [edit: from that angle]. This is not the same as for a mirror. A mirror has to not only look different from different angles, but the image upon its face has to change in response to the environment. It has pre-programmed behaviours that respond to its environment.

If you stand in front of her, and you move to her left by 45 degrees, what you see changes, too.

Yes, but not in the same way.

Alos Also, nothing that you see as you move is not something everything that you see as you move is something that could have been supplied at the time of casting, in the form of a 3D rendition of the object. All of the textures, colours, etc, do not move on the object, relative to the object.

Not so for a mirror.

If you stand in front of her, between her and a light source, and you move, what you see likewise changes as parts of her that were dim become brightly lit, and parts of her that were brightly lit become dim.

I disagree with this. However, I think this distinction is more subtle than most of us are making it out to be. Certaintly Certainly, something that could reasonably take roughly 3 seconds of inspection to notice.

If you stand in front of her with lights of different colors on behind you, and you move, parts of her will change apparent shade because the lights shadowed and revealed wrt her will change.

For the real statue, yes. For the illusion, no. But again, I think this is more subtle than people realize. Certaintly Certainly something that could reasonably take roughly 3 seconds of inspection to notice.

Okay, on to your explanation for why it's a problem:
The illusion isn't changing, any more than the real object that is a mirror is changing. It isn't "interacting" with its environment. It's just sitting there. The real mirror isn't interacting, either. No more than a real white ball is "interacting" just by sitting there as the sun passes by overhead.

But this is more.

The real white ball and the real mirror are interacting to the exact same degree – that is correct. But this is interacting, and the illusions cannot do this.

I note for the record that you just made this claim.

Do you see why I find this counter to the quote it's countering to be...questionable...given the claim I just noted you made above? Please reconcile it for me, because it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

I can only guess it’s because you’re conflating the difference between a real mirror and a real ball with the difference between an image of a mirror and a mirror an image of a ball.

Please show me where this rule exists. I'm serious. I fail to see how this statement is any more factual than, "In order to have color, an object must be real," or, "In order to be visible, an object must be real," or, "In order to exist in a 5 ft. cube, an object must be real."

Okay, so I withdraw this claim. The problem is the word “real.” I will restate it:

In order for an object to bear a reflection, it must be made of matter.

I am all but 100% certain you're not asserting any of those statements are true. What makes them false but the one you asserted true?

Illusions are not made of matter. They are explained by JC to not interact with light (which follows from not being made of matter). But illusions can have colour and exist in space. This is part of how the’re they're defined. They are perhaps unique in this way, but there you have it.

Again, how do you justify "reflection" as a quality it cannot bear, but "color" as one that it can?

Think of it in terms of the creation process. Why can you create a block that is red, green, blue, or yellow, but not a block that is the colour of the face of whoever looks at it?

My answer is: because the caster can objectively define the colours red, green, blue, and yellow at the time of casting. But the caster cannot bestow upon his creation the ability to detect the colour of the face of whomever looks upon it, nor the ability to change precisely when the faces change.

Reflection is not a quality in the same way, because reflection requires an object. Red is just red. Reflection is meaningless, unless there is an object to reflect.

Or even "blocks sight?" I mean, are we sure that you CAN hide behind a 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft. image of a box? How do we know that people can't see you through it, and yet somehow still believe that it's a real box if they can't (or won't try to) make the Investigation check?

This is a rabbit hole that’s unnecessary, I think.

I am trying very hard to patiently and clearly outline why I hold this position. Actually attack the points I'm making. I have given the conditions required to falsify my beliefs. Demonstrate that what you're asserting cannot equally be applied to other visual properties of the object, that you're not just making up arbitrary distinctions that, "um, reflections are...just...different...you know?" and I'll at least start to come around on it.

I am not adhering to this out of some perverse desire to be able to make mirrors with minor illusion. I honestly can do so with prestidigitation and other effects if I really want to. Heck, I could play a Conjurer instead of an Illusionist and make REAL ones (sure, they glow, but who cares?) that unquestionably work. I am rooted in this position because so far nobody has managed to address the logical chain that makes me find it valid. At best, they've done what you're doing and made assertions of facts not in evidence. And then there's Vogonjeltz, who...well, I have lost respect for his so-called "argumentation" long ago in this subforum. I only even reply to him so he doesn't accidentally make people think he has a point.

I don’t think you’re do doing it out of stubbornness or anything like that. As I said before, I think you’d understand my view if we had a 30-minute conversation.

Well, you can, if you can get sufficiently reflective silver paint.

Show me where the spell tells us that it cannot achieve a particular sheen, gloss, reflection, color, or visual quality, the way a mundane painter is limited by the paint colors he can acquire, and you might have a point, here. But consider: if you do not have blue paint, because you cannot get it due to the technology required and rarity of the dyes, can you paint a blue ball? Would you, if you lived in a time and place where this was a common or universal limitation assert that you could never make a silent image of a blue-eyed princess that had properly blue eyes, just because you're incapable of making a painting which does?

Another rabbit hole.

I deny it vehemently. A mirror is far, far less complex in function than a television. A simple pool of water under the right conditions behaves like one, just by being WATER. A sufficiently-polished dagger, sword, or suit of armor can serve as a crude one. Show me how you almost "accidentally" create a TV.

You are denying something different than what I said.

I do not claim that a television is less complex than a mirror.

I claim that an illusion of a television is less complex than an illusion of a mirror (unless, perhaps, the illusion of the television can respond to a remote or to button pressing).

As would the visual image of a plain white ball as the sun passed overhead and through different windows. As would the visual image of a plain white wall with a fire burning 20 feet away from it. Especially if somebody made shadow-puppets on said wall.

Yes. And I am saying that an illusion of said wall cannot do this, but the real wall can.

In the case of the TV, it must be receiving signals to order its change. The television's screen is ACTUALLY CHANGING when it's the real object. In most cases, it's also creating light, but you could conceivably make an LCD screen that never emitted light; in such a case, the TV screen is still actively changing color by selectively moving colored crystals to the forefront or away.

Thus, the real object television is actively changing its display. It is a rapid slide show.

Yes.

The mirror, like the plain white wall, is not changing itself in any way. It's just sitting there. Its surface is not altered. It's visible parts are not shifting. It is emitting no light.

That’s correct for the real mirror. Now think about trying to create an illusion of a mirror. It cannot just sit there and accomplish what a real mirror accomplishes, because it cannot reflect light. As a result, the caster has to create the impression that it can. How? If there is no way to convey environmental information to the mirror, then there is no way to convey that information to the magic of the illusion.

You may as well claim that the big white screen teachers used to pull down in front of the chalk board at schools across the country before shining a projector on it were changing. They weren't; they're always just plain, white screens, with different patterns of light playing across them.

Yes. So, if you wanted to create an illusion of the screen, you could, but then could not “hold” a projection. It would just appear white.

If you wanted to create the illusion of the projected movie, you’d have to create the illusion of the movie, and run the rapid slide show.

If you wanted to create a mirror-sizes reflected mirror-sized reflective surface insrtead of a white screen, you’d have to run a rapid slide show – but of what? Well, the slides would have to be prefect “pictures of the room,” but there is no way to anticipate what those pictures will be, and no way for the illusion to choose them by itself. So the rapid slideshow is required to be made up of slides that can’t even be imagined at the point of casting.

No. I think the image of a mirror looks the way a real mirror does. Now, you can find examples of images of mirrors which don't bear reflections. They're but a google image search away. But I can find examples of images of flowers which don't bear color. Does this mean that all minor illusions are black-and-white only?

I guess, from my point of view, the caster more or less has to provide a mentally conceived graphical net of the object, and provide the coloured textures (the 2D bitmaps) that will form its skin.

You can provide colours, patterns that appear to be glossy, matte, textured, etc. but you can’t turn those 2D bitmaps into slideshows. So true sheen is not possible, but it is illusory enough to be convincing. The problem with creating an illusion of mirror that functions convincingly is that the 2D bitmaps would have to not only change, but change in unpredictable ways [edit: meaning: impossible to predict at the time of casting].

As I've repeatedly said, it doesn't technically have to interact with light. Since you're asserting the model where it's visible despite not interacting with light, you're using "because magic" to justify it. I am fine with this; the spell is magic, after all. But by the same token, the spell says it makes an image of the object. If it can be visible "because magic," then it can bear reflections "because magic." Just as it bears color "because magic" under this model. Just as it obstructs vision "because magic" under this model.

So, this is the gorund ground upon which I think my argument wins out. Bearing colour and bearing reflections are conceptually very different, especially from the framework of trying to create them. I have tried to explain this above.

It appears to me that you're failing to comprehend what I'm saying, then, because "substantial" doesn't enter into my arguments at all. It seems to me that you're having difficulty divorcing your conception of an "image" from preconceptions that are not present in the spell, and are simply asserting they MUST be there because you imagine so.

In fairness, you’v you've never defined what you mean by image.

Okay, so you ARE asserting that, if I make a minor illusion of a white ball, it will have no shading and it will appear as a brightly lit white ball under any, all, and even NO lighting conditions. Is that correct?

Yes.

Oh, also, you're again putting lie to this claim:
As in the quote right before I repeated this one, you clearly state:

No. One claim is about an object. The other is about the image of an object.

So...you ARE arguing that, if you have that 5-ft.-tall minor illusion of the Statue of Liberty, and you walk around behind it, you MUST see the same thing you saw - the same image on your retina - as when you were standing in front of it? You won't, for example, see the back of the statue instead of the front, then? Because apparently that requires the image to change.

You will see the side, back, or whatever other oblique-angled view you ought to see. That’s because it is 3D image which is objectively there in that space. It doesn’t change. Your position changes. Each and every face of the object was created at the time of casting, and is coloured appropriately to appear shaded to fit the natural lighting.

But if you shine a light on it, these predetermined colours can’t change.

I do know what you're trying to say. I'm trying to demonstrate why you're not applying what you're saying consistently, and/or why what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. You have it in your head that an "image" must be a photograph in matte colors painted in 3D in the air, and must have certain limitations that you are imagining based on this mental model.

While this is more-or-less true, I’m not sure that you imagine that in the same way I do.

You then ascribe these limits to the spell, because you want them to be there.

Not because I want them to be there, but because of the limits on how they can possible possibly be achieved. These are spells which must follow some form of logic.

But since that's not what the spell says, you keep dancing around admitting that's what you're imagining, and when it's pointed out, you deny it...but then go back to using limitations drawn from that model to define limits to what the spell can do. All without actually drawing on the spell text to support it.

Again. This is why we need to back up the conversation. You are making assumptions about my meaning, and then telling me what my conclusions ought to be. When I say, no, those were not my assumptions, you think I then “danced” out of my original claim. I did not.

So, then, the white illusory ball looks pure white under green light, and the red illusory ball is plainly visible as bright red even when no light is present.

Yes.

I still am waiting for you to support this with the spell's text, but that is the end result of the logic you're using to claim that a white screen can't bear shadows that change based on things passing between it and the light illuminating it, or mirrors being unable to bear reflections.

Visual properties are inherently impacted by the environment. If they're not, you get...oh, wait:

So, yes. You do stand by the claim that the illusory red ball is plainly visible in pitch darkness as bright red, and would have no shading that wasn't painted on it.

Please show me this limitation in the spell description. It seems pretty important to point out.

It’s not in the spell description. It’s in the JC quote.

So... now you're also imposing a limitation that all illusory surfaces must be smooth, and can only have painted-on shading to try to make them look like they have 3D texture?

I...can't beleive you really mean that. I assume you just aren't thinking through the implication of what you just said. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, this doesn’t follow from what I said.

"The ability to see the object" is a property of the environment. Move it behind a screen, or turn out the lights, and you can't see the object. So now we also know that not only is the red ball brightly lit and visible in the dark, but that we can see it even if somebody puts a big real crate around it. Because that's a property of the environment, and we know that those can't affect how the illusion looks.

The ability to see an object is an interaction of the properties of the object, the subject, and the environment.

The ability to be "blue" is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to be seen is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to obscure line of sight is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

These are different sorts of properties, which is what we ought to be talking about.

Er, no. I've taken "image" to mean "it looks like the object does." Barring further limitations imposed by other constraints (such as the restriction on generating light) in the spell text, that's what it does. Therefore, it is you who are inventing a definition of "image" with restrictions you believe it should have and ascribing it to the spell without support in the spell's text.

I accept that it “looks like the object does.” But we also have the claim from JC to contend with – that the illusion cannot interact with light. This is not my restriction. But I see that it can work.

Okay. So illusory bumps on the illusory surface, without the caster carefully placing each little bump-shadow, are transparent? Or at least look like that brand-new material that has been invented which actually does absorb so much light that you can't see variations in the surface it's painted on?

No, this doesn’t follow. They look as the surface would look if it were illumiated from all sides. Opaque but shadowless.

Again, you're inventing a lot of limitations that aren't present in the spell. I know why you're doing it: you have a mental image of a matte sculpture of the object as the definition of an "image." But that model is unsupported by the text of the spell.

Again, this is all coming from the JC information. Not from me. I’m just looking at how it can work. And it appears to work pretty well.

Absolutely. It's the "because magic" model I keep allowing is the other way to follow the RAW of the spell. But under that model, can YOU imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, looking just like the object it appears to be would if it was really there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque, shaded, lit, colored, textured, reflective, etc.?

I don’t think so. I mean, I can imagine it, but I don’t think that I am imagining it in the way that you are, and I think my way still has problems associated with it. For example, the extent of the illusion is a 5’x5’x5’ cube, so even if it could relfect real ligh reflect real light, I find it hard to imagine that it can extert this effect (receiving or transmitting) beyond the 5’x5’x5’ limitation.

Because that is what the spell text supports: an image of an object. Not a matte 3D painting of an object that is equally brightly lit no matter what the actual lighting conditions are.

You keep loading the language in this way, as if a matte 3D painting is what I mean. There is functionally no difference in appearance, no matter how much you load the language.

If you actually want to discuss this with the intent of getting closer to understanding one another, I suggest we look closer at the statue example, and restrict our post lengths.

[Zorku]

excuse me? did you really read my post? I explain that, wile it would be impractical/impossible to do so with a wall, it is possible to pull this off by being creative and making something with the right dimensions and that fits in the surounding, such as a Cupboard. This is an 100% RAW use of the spell.

I didn't chop your first post up into line-by-line, but apparently you need that.
So, "Wile it is a perfectly eligible use of Silent Image, the 5 foot cube does not cut it." What about silent image allows you to create "empty space," when minor illusion cannot, and by what mechanism do you propose it does this?

I get that you're talking about that a bit in the rest of this post, but I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't asking about how somebody can crouch inside of their own illusion.

I never suggested camouflage,

If this is the case, then what did you mean when you said "it is a perfectly eligible use of Silent Image"? What is the IT in that sentence?

I am just suggesting an alternative use to enable "virtual invisibility" as in concealment, not "invisibility as the spell", witch is obviously something you can't pull off at all angles, just from one particular angle.

Got any way to judicate how far you can deviate from that angle? If it only works from the one square then that's such a weirdly specific application that I can't come up with any time you'd want to use it in an actual game.

Minor illusion creates "The (3-d) image of an object". Invisibility is not an object. A Camouflage canvas is an object, but it works from a particular view point, and you can still see it's outline. Now, if I make the image of a wall, at the same colour as the wall behind me, what I really have is an other wall in front of the other wall. A 5-foot cube wall, that is more suspicious than benefical in this situation.

How about camouflage canvas that shows the wall behind you in lighting conditions where you know the other guy wouldn't be able to see the individual bricks that make up the wall? You still expect weird parallax there, but how about an entire friggin diorama that's got distorted models of the wall and floor and some furniture that looks like it belongs so that the whole thing appears deeper than it actually is? Is the diorama still just one object? Does it fail for some other reason (prior to an investigation check)? We're eight pages in already and you're talking about this like nobody had established a position back on page 2.

It would look like this:
and not really fool anyone, but instead be cool enough to look at, thus giving reason for investigation.

What's cool about that other than how it looks like it defies gravity?

Were exactly did I go overboard to offend you so much as to receve this passive-agressive post as a reply?

A: By wasting my time. What portion of this thread did you actually read? If your answer is anything to the tune of "more than the first post" it almost certainly does not include anything from the page that you posted on.
B: I don't really understand how being actively confrontational can come across as passive aggressive. I do come from a very passive aggressive population though, so if you feel like that was actually the correct classification of my behavior I'd be happy to have that explained to me.

Reflections depict things other than the object, so what you're saying can't possibly be true.

No they don't, reflections ARE the object. Unless you're saying that conjuring up the Mona Lisa is also an invalid illusion due to it depicting a vaguely smiling woman when it's actually a painting.

I don't want to just sit here calling you an idiot, but do you listen to yourself before you post these things?[/quote]

You've correctly assessed what I did. You claimed a reflection is an object without evidence, and it was dismissed.

Good. You seem to understand the concept finally. Now let's go back to square one. Do you still claim that "other sensory effects" means reflections and shadows and hands on a clock moving and visual texture and all those other arbitrary rulings you tossed out in the last thread?

He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.

You're fractally wrong. I reject your premises and your larger claim here.

Here, I'll break it down for you:

• Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects

I reject this claim.

• They ... exist ... where light interplays with objects

I accept this, but reject that it is the only option.

• something dependent on interaction (can't) exist when that interaction is impossible.

In the case of illusions, I reject this entirely. That's the gorram point of illusions.

If I stand in front of an illusion of a mirror, and I move, and what I see changes, then there is a problem. The illusion is not a physical object nor is it capable of interacting with its environment. The only way for the illusion of the mirror to change is if the illusion changes.

So when you say that illusions cannot interact with anything, I end up with another problem. Being seen seems to be some kind of interaction, with the eye. We've already established that you don't think these things exist in the minds of creatures, so I won't go over the things you call phantasms or the weirder things any further, but if it's entirely outside of the mind, then that seems to entail some kind of interaction.

So, are you saying that these illusions are not in the mind (or at least, not in the mind in any way that the computer screen I'm actually looking at right now isn't in my mind,) but that you somehow see them without any kind of environmental interaction? If so, what does that even mean?

These are not real textures, because real textures require material. A little bump on the surface of an illusion cannot cast a tiny shadow unless the caster creates that "shadow" as part of the illusion. So, yes, I know exactly what you mean. You're describing the illusion of texture - not texture.

You've managed to sail right past the point.

I'm going to loosely define 3 concepts here to try and get us communicating more clearly:

Any time you're talking about an illusion we can declare that it is not real. Doing so is a tautology (except in the case of that damn illusionist ability that muddies these waters, but I'll ignore that for simplicity,) so it is true by nature of identity, but it ends right where it began, so it serves no purpose in a logical proof.

Tactile texture is exactly the sensations you experience when touching something that is not perfectly smooth (or maybe "smooth" counts as a texture, but again, simplicity.) Our illusory images obviously lack any kind of tactile texture because your hand goes through them just as easily as it goes through a hologram.

Visual texture results from the same surface-shape that gives normal, real objects tactile texture. Light moves in straight lines (rays) so any oblique angles, relative to a light source, will have a visual texture that's got strong bright spots and strong dark spots, based on the texture. If you've ever taken a drawing course that deals with realism then you're familiar with the very basic highlights and shadows situation that you can see in this image



Visual texture is exactly the same thing, but rough surfaces cause this to pattern to happen more locally.



When you tell me that there's no texture there, what I do that that balloon is turn it into the white ball from the first image (except, orange with yellow stripes.) All of those little lines down the middle are only visible because they create a visual texture. There is a dumber alternative that I've tried to rule out, but our communication has never been clear enough for me to be sure. When you say that there's no texture you might mean that there are no highlights at all, and that an illusion of this balloon would appear to have the exact orange that we see down the middle of the balloon, like this

There is no texture of any kind to that image (where I only mean the balloon,) but I cannot justify asking for an investigation check for something so out-of-place. I've tried rationalizing that maybe it is in the mind or any number of things like that, but the words you use seem to keep saying that we must have this terrible mspaint effect image (minus the wobbly lines that come from drawing with a mouse.)

My understanding of the differences between the 3 ways I describe the balloon are all "texture" things, and I don't understand what else you could be talking about taking away when you say that there can be no texture.

Yeah, so how about you, then?

Can you imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque?

Yup.

Can you image/understand/accept the idea of an image of a mirror that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but is reflective, and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as reflective?

In the old days of computer programming, it was hard to create in-game mirrors. This is because they had to program the mirror-function into the mirror object itself. As a result, creating a mirror was difficult. The mirror had to be a complex object that had its own code. If the player-controlled character could never enter the field of the mirror’s reflection, then it was easier, because you could more or less just draw a room on the opposite side of the mirror and have the mirror be transparent, impenetrable glass. But if you wanter wanted the player-controlled character [edit: to be able to be viewable in the mirror], it would be harder. And if you had moving elements in the environment, or enemy mobs, or NPCs, it would be even harder. To me, this is the sort of position I am advocating. A mirror of this type is degrees more complex than a box or other object.

If you're going to reference computer modeling we should actually break down what the assumptions of such a system are.

• Objects in this kind of 3d space are defined by their shape. We have equations that tell us if any triangular face (polygon) is front or back, relative to the camera, and we actively tell the computer not to draw those polygons.
• We map a "texture" onto this shape. That texture is a flat image, ideally a flat square of the material that we want our object to be made of.
• We 'render' lighting upon this object by tracing lines from a light source in a way that is distinct from the equations that we use to occlude all of the polygons on the back side of an object. We then increase or decrease the brightness (highlights & shadows) to give more depth to this world.

In that kind of model you don't "see" things by nature of light hitting them and then bouncing off to enter the camera. You simply see everything, but it is all colored black if there is no light, and thus you don't have enough contrast to distinguish between objects. What you don't see, is anything behind opaque objects (except in cases where the engine doesn't quite draw polygons connecting to each other correctly, and then you see some stuff through the gaps, since the engine is rendering every polygon that faces you, or large polygons vanish while you can still see some portion of them because the engine only references the center point to determine if it is facing into the camera, and so on.)

So, you've got this math for the angles that something should be for you to see it, and you've got a lot of data that tells you what things are physically in front of what other things, and that's the entire basis for how you see things in basic 3d. If there is zero lighting calculation then a skilled artist probably still draws shadows onto a lot of the wall textures and so forth, because objects have visual texture like that, but this doesn't hold up to you having a torch or a flashlight or anything like that. There's no equations for lighting there so you can't ever move the light sources.

More modern stuff does have dynamic lighting, whether that's minecraft's super basic "the tile that contains a torch is brightness 15, then the next tile out in all 6 directions is 14, then the next tile out is 13, etc" (After a long while they realized that using gradients for the lighting looked way the **** better, so you also need a bit of data to tell you where the light source is, and some edge case handling for when two light sources are equidistant,) or stuff like the crazy lighting and shading options that the Gearbox team is working on for their next Borderlands game (Seriously, go look up the video. You can see people through a tarp because of the shadow they cast on it while the wind ripples the surface.)

But if you're still using polygon math to decide if a camera "sees" any particular surface, then it's this entire package of other processing demands to figure out what's going on with light. If instead, you start with light, and you only see things by nature of light leaving some source and then bouncing any number of times before it enters your eye, then all of these lighting concerns are part of the same equation that you use to see them in the first place, which leads to very different assumptions about how hard it is to produce a mirror.

[Segev]

I'm going to attempt to reply without quotes, and to whole concepts. There are some key points, though, that reveal to me that I exactly understand the model you propose...and I still stand by the claim that this model is not actually supported in the spell text.

(You go to JC's quotes for some support, but I'm really not interested in JC's quotes except as one possible DM's house rule's, because he's ruled quite inconsistently between spells in the past. So I find him unpersuasive. The impression I get is that he doesn't actually analyze the questions, but just gives a from-the-hip call on how he's rule it in a specific moment at his game table. Which is fine, but isn't really useful to an in-depth discussion of what can and can't be done, because it would require that we have JC there to answer all the questions rather than form a logical construct we can all use as a basis.)

Twice, BurgerBeast, you reference computer programming. Once directly, and once by discussing the illusion precisely in terms of graphical objects and bitmap nets.

That is exactly what I thought your mental model of the spell was, based on the limits you are ascribing to it.

Yes, a graphical "object" in a computer simulation can't have a reflection any more than it can be shiny. It is a 2D painting that can rapidly alter faster than the human eye's refresh rate in order to keep up with rotation of the 3D object relative to the 2D window through which we're viewing it. To be pedantic, that 5-ft-tall image of the Statue of Liberty is, in fact, rapidly altering the pixels that make up the image of it you're seeing as you rotate it in space (or move around it in VR, as the VR headset is still showing you only two 2D images that shift as you move).

Now, less pedantically, I know you're not literally claiming that we only see the image through a computer screen or VR goggles. You're conceptualizing the object the way we mentally "envision" its existence "behind" the screen, and conceiving that you're walking around it really projected into the real world. So, to you, there's really a bunch of static pixels hovering in the air, that mesh-mapping of colors and faux shading, etc. And thus, it's just like there's a sculpture made out of those pixels. And, like an LCD without backlighting, it's only lit up by the surrounding light. ...or it's magically emitting non-light that still works like light, because magic, for purposes of seeing it, anyway.

None of which I have an inherent problem with as a model for how visual illusions might work.

It just doesn't happen to be supported by the rules of 5e, as they are written.

But I am firmly convinced that I do understand the model you're using. I just think it's not the right model. It makes perfect sense that you'd come into this with that mental model; it fits with what you know of artificial images generated by arbitrary means in the modern world. That's why I have little difficulty imagining your model.

What was more mental work for me was really examining its implications, such as the (to me) horribly unrealistic behavior it would exhibit as you turn out the lights.


The point you seem to be getting hung up on is two-fold:

1) You keep talking about how difficult it is to program a mirror in computer graphics, and how the reflection property requires specialized programming even with modern object models, and
2) You keep insisting that this must be what an illusory mirror would have to do to bear a reflection because you claim only real things can bear reflections.

Point (2) is the one that I want to question most severely. On what do you base this claim? Why do you insist it is so?

I would like you to examine your assumption - or justify your premise - that only real/material things can bear reflections. I see no reason why, when discussing magic, this must be true.

[Fixer]

These arguments would be rendered moot if you stop thinking in terms of illusions as 'physical' objects.

When the spell is cast, the spell creates a magical 'area in space' that affects anyone who observes it (sense appropriate). To the observer, they see what the illusionist intends and the observer's mind fills in the gaps just as our minds fill in the gaps when we see something unclearly.

Shadow illusions are given more than just this 'area in space' but also are physically present to the degree their spells allow.

To this end, if the observer has never seen themselves in a reflection (unlikely but possible), they wouldn't see a reflection in a mirror, but they wouldn't think it was unusual either, because they've never seen a reflection anyway.

This gets around the whole objects and reflections and similar physics-based arguments and allows the players and GM to get back to the game.

[Zorku]

These arguments would be rendered moot if you stop thinking in terms of illusions as 'physical' objects.

When the spell is cast, the spell creates a magical 'area in space' that affects anyone who observes it (sense appropriate). To the observer, they see what the illusionist intends and the observer's mind fills in the gaps just as our minds fill in the gaps when we see something unclearly.

Shadow illusions are given more than just this 'area in space' but also are physically present to the degree their spells allow.

To this end, if the observer has never seen themselves in a reflection (unlikely but possible), they wouldn't see a reflection in a mirror, but they wouldn't think it was unusual either, because they've never seen a reflection anyway.

This gets around the whole objects and reflections and similar physics-based arguments and allows the players and GM to get back to the game.

I proposed that a couple of pages back. People started yelling about how the minor illusions and silent images aren't "in another creature's mind." A few of the voices are adamant about the illusory image being where it seems to be and actually looking how it looks... though each voice that advocates for that means it in some subtle or blatantly different way than the others.

[Segev]

The spell does specify that it creates an image of an object in a particular location contained within a 5 ft.-to-an-edge cube. The "it's just this thing in your head" model doesn't live up to the spell description.

It still baffles me that there is so much fear/anti-desire/dislike/whatever for the notion that an image of a mirror might bear a reflection that people are trying desperately to invent a justification for it not doing so. (See, I can ascribe belittling motives to others, as well, if I want to!)

As for my definition of an "image of an object:" it's a thing which looks like the object looks. Barring restrictions, it looks in all ways like the object would if the object were at that specific spot in the environment.

Specific restrictions we're given are that other material objects pass through it (so nothing will appear to "bounce off" if thrown at it, dropped on it, etc.), it can't create light, and it's also explicitly banned from sensory effects other than visual. It also has unspecified flaws which are bounded in obviousness by the DC of the Investigation check one must take explicit action studying it in order to make to discover its falsehood.

Having a shiny or reflective surface is no different than having a matte surface of a particular color; it is part of looking like the real object would look at that location under the conditions present from the environment. Since it is not barred, it is present. If you wanted to claim that the reflection was in some way flawed as the reason that your Investigation check succeeded, sure, go ahead, but nothing in the spell suggests that there is a blanket ban on the image of a reflective object bearing reflections. Therefore, we have no support from the text of the spell for assertions that images of mirrors bear no real reflections.

All such assertions stem from models others are imposing on what this illusion "must" be. Models which, again, are not prescribed by the text of the spell.

[Cybren]

It still baffles me that there is so much fear/anti-desire/dislike/whatever for the notion that an image of a mirror might bear a reflection that people are trying desperately to invent a justification for it not doing so. (See, I can ascribe belittling motives to others, as well, if I want to!)

This whole argument started when someone claimed you can use minor illusion to make complex optical devices

[Segev]

This whole argument started when someone claimed you can use minor illusion to make complex optical devices

While I wouldn't allow that for the same reason I wouldn't allow a player who happens to know the precise actions necessary for him to go out into the wilderness and cook up a black powder bomb to have his PC in a game I was running take those exact specific actions and "just happen" to make an explosive that I wouldn't have otherwise allowed in D&D...

...spells and powers other than minor illusion could do the same thing if the DM were allowing precisely-described alignments of optical elements to be defined by the player. The most obvious being the Conjurer's low-level feature. Heck, with 5e's removal of the "attempting to use it as a tool breaks it" rule from prestidigitation's conjured gewgaws, that would do it, too.

So while I appreciate the explanation for why people might be trying to be clever and nip high-powered optics in the bud by banning reflections, it doesn't make it less of a house rule, nor does it make the "illusions can't bear reflections" position any better supported by the RAW.

[Laurefindel]

Well there's optics and then there's magic. It's hard to tell where optics end and where magic begins, and vice versa.

Personally, I prefer to go the "full optics road" like I described before, or the "what is this optics you're talking about" way used by Christian (I'm starting to believe the latter is actually the way to go).

"full optics" pretends the object is there with all logical conclusions (it reflects light like any object, casts a shadow etc). It does lead to the re-creation of complex optical mechanisms, which isn't RAW but a consequential houserule just to keep it simple (and go to full logical length)

"no optics" simply goes off the premise that an illusion is a magic meant to be seen but that otherwise does not interfere with its environment. The less optical terms you bring, the happier you'll be.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable when it's somewhere in between, unless the possibilities (and limits) of magic are clearly defined, but I find RAW on the matter rather lacking

[Zorku]

The spell does specify that it creates an image of an object in a particular location contained within a 5 ft.-to-an-edge cube. The "it's just this thing in your head" model doesn't live up to the spell description.

It still baffles me that there is so much fear/anti-desire/dislike/whatever for the notion that an image of a mirror might bear a reflection that people are trying desperately to invent a justification for it not doing so. (See, I can ascribe belittling motives to others, as well, if I want to!)

Well to me it seems intuitively wrong to have an illusion of a lens bending light to create a bright spot like you can burn ants with, and if I come from a direction like that then it seems obvious that actually doing anything with light requires a physical interaction of some sort. I don't want light to bounce off of an illusory mirror any more than I want it to bend through an illusory lens; light should ignore the illusion, like any other physical interaction.

In order to get around this I have to actually tell myself that "what light does, does not count as physical interaction," and thus I can bypass that line of logic. This step isn't really useful on its own though, because now I don't really know what light interactions DO count as, and on a good day it's really awkward to try and talk about what light interactions DO count as, especially when you never directly said that light does not count as physical interactions with illusions. It's really weird to try and construct the right questions, and since you've been watching my interaction with BurgerBeast you should be able to see the kind of trouble this all runs into if the other person just started with some other assumption and never had to take the same route of redefinition to bypass the intuitive line of logic. All of this kind of communication is really hard and involves an inordinate amount of yelling.

In the now, I've been positing the idea that,

• Light IS a physical interaction, whether that's bouncing off of an object to create colors (via subtraction of wavelengths,) or entering into your eye so that you can see things.
• Illusions do not interact with light in that way, but they behave as if they did. Because magic.
• No, seriously. It works because magic. Don't even bother with questions of how it works. The answer to those questions is magic, and the answer is not anything other than magic.

This isn't so much a stance that I wish to defend, but one that I wish to fail to defend. It is fairly weak, but it's on par with a certain subset of the arguments that people have been making, and the only way that it will actually fall apart is if someone can present an unstated premise and show contradiction. It absolutely does contradict a lot of the premises that other people are leaving unstated in their arguments that conclude with "because magic," but it's such a weird process to set assumptions like that to the side that it's probably going to take quite awhile before anybody that has posed one of those arguments can challenge this.

As for my definition of an "image of an object:" it's a thing which looks like the object looks. Barring restrictions, it looks in all ways like the object would if the object were at that specific spot in the environment.

I've got a weird sort-of-defeater for this. The minor illusion has to fit within a 5ft cube. If we include these environmental interactions in that then it can be illuminated similarly to other surfaces within the 5ft cube, and a mirror can reflect appropriately, but only out to the bounds of that cube. Any "information" outside of that cube would require a physical interaction to influence the appearance of the phantom image, or when spell text or class features allow, a wizard needs to actively mediate that transfer of information.

This is internally consistent, and explains the increase in power of our phantom image illusions purely by virtue of their area of effect, and is perfectly RAW. The only issue is that it requires a definition for physical interaction that you almost certainly do not subscribe to. For everyone else, there is enough information about the light within that 5ft cube to easily determine the same kind of artistic shading that people so eagerly assume into the spell, but not enough to create a very good mirror. Silent image creates a slightly more useful mirror for a higher spell slot, major image possibly creates a perfect mirror via different text, and then mirage arcane works better still in both of those ways.

Specific restrictions we're given are that other material objects pass through it (so nothing will appear to "bounce off" if thrown at it, dropped on it, etc.), it can't create light, and it's also explicitly banned from sensory effects other than visual. It also has unspecified flaws which are bounded in obviousness by the DC of the Investigation check one must take explicit action studying it in order to make to discover its falsehood.

That's getting too far away from the physical interaction language, and the DC check based flaws relies on assumptions about how skill checks work. In some settings you might simply investigate to see if it 'smells' like there is illusion magic here, with better illusionists doing a better job of masking the arcane odor that their illusions give off.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, then, you are claiming that an image of a red ball is 100% visible, with no shading or anything else, even in pitch darkness? It must look red in the dark, even to darkvision?

Or are you claiming that there is something special about "a reflection" that is somehow different from "a red light shining on a white surface?"

The problem, Vogonjeltz, is that you're assuming the reflection is "depicting" anything. It isn't. It's just what color, shade, and brightness the object that bears it appears to have from a given angle under given lighting conditions. You assert that it's doing things that it isn't, and then use that assertion to justify an arbitrary exclusion that is not in the spell, while pretending that you're not being arbitrary.

Illumination and Sight abilities determine what is or isn't visible to a given character.

If the image is of a red ball, and the area is brightly lit, all characters who aren't blind will see it.
If the area is nonmagical darkness then the image of the ball would be visible to those characters with darkvision (albeit in shades of gray as is normal for darkvision).

There is no reason at all to think anything else, nor have I at any time said anything that would suggest such a thought.

You are going to have to explain why you have thus far failed to comprehend this before you raise any further "objections". If you don't get it, fine, but please stop misrepresenting, especially in such blatantly absurd fashion, the clear statements thus far provided.

Nobody made such a claim.

The image of a mirror bears reflections, because mirrors do that.

Oh look, it took seconds to search for "reflection" and find you literally making the exact claim you then say no one made. I found it on this same page no less.

They are visual properties of the object. You keep conveniently leaving out that word. I suspect because you know it invalidates the arguments you're trying to make.

Irrelevant, it's the claim that it's a property of the object where the claim falls flat. Stop dissembling.

By this logic

Magic of the spell expressly bypasses this claim.

to see the image created by minor illusion, as seeing it would require interaction with your eyesight. Which, as a thing, passes right through it.

This is totally unsupported. The image is visible assuming prevailing lighting conditions allow for visibility of the area. Actual life mechanics have no bearing on this anymore than they do on the rules for lifting/dragging.

You're using the guy at the gym fallacy by trying to misappropriate physics to apply them to magic of illusions.

No they don't, reflections ARE the object.

No, reflections are light bouncing off an object.

Here, I'll break it down for you:

It would help if you correctly quoted instead of editing my text. Also, the bad formatting of the response reduces its readability.

Here's what I actually wrote:
He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.

[Laurefindel]

Well to me it seems intuitively wrong to have an illusion of a lens bending light to create a bright spot like you can burn ants with, and if I come from a direction like that then it seems obvious that actually doing anything with light requires a physical interaction of some sort. I don't want light to bounce off of an illusory mirror any more than I want it to bend through an illusory lens; light should ignore the illusion, like any other physical interaction.

[emphasis mine]

One thing I observed in these kind of discussions (in my case at least) is that in trying to explain what should happen because of logic/RAW/consistency/physics, we sometimes lose focus on what we want as an end result.

You know what you want. That's good! Hold on to that and make your argumentation in that direction (not saying you haven't, speaking figuratively here).

I think its about time I ask myself what I want too. I want it to be simple, I know that much... Ideally I want it to be RAW, or close to it anyway. At the risk of being repetitive, has any precision on RAW about illusions been tweeted or blogged by devs?

[edit] what about...
illusions and reflection (talking mirror here)
illusions casting shadows
illusions emitting light (illusion of a fireball)
Illusions reacting to light sources (highlights and glimmers)
Illusions reacting to variation in light intensities
Illusions blocking light

[Fixer]

The spell does specify that it creates an image of an object in a particular location contained within a 5 ft.-to-an-edge cube.
...
As for my definition of an "image of an object:" it's a thing which looks like the object looks. Barring restrictions, it looks in all ways like the object would if the object were at that specific spot in the environment.
...
Specific restrictions we're given are that other material objects pass through it (so nothing will appear to "bounce off" if thrown at it, dropped on it, etc.), it can't create light, and it's also explicitly banned from sensory effects other than visual. It also has unspecified flaws which are bounded in obviousness by the DC of the Investigation check one must take explicit action studying it in order to make to discover its falsehood.

None of what you have stated here cannot be explained if the 'object' is not an actual visual image. If it is an aspect of perception, as opposed to an aspect of light, then all your statements can still be true.

Instead of the spell creating light (in essence, a hologram), it actually changes the perceptions of the person who views the location of the illusion (which is why illusions are defined as an area). More powerful spells have increasingly more control over the perceptions of their viewer, even to the point (for very high level spells) of convincing them that they are physically present (tactile sensations). Of course, gravity doesn't 'sense' anything so the illusions will not support someone any more than normal air would, barring some actual physical presence (like shadow spells).

Given that these spells also control perception, rather than mind control, can also explain why it is they work on creatures 'with no mind', but are still able to perceive.

Also, the whole concept of 'illusions control perception' fits the concept far more than 'can make pretty holograms'.

Reflections: Yes, because the perceiver would expect to see a reflection if they have ever encountered a reflective surface, but they would only see what they expect, so someone could still sneak up on them because they were unaware they were there.
Shadows: Yes, because the perceiver would expect them, although the shadow isn't ACTUALLY there.
Illusions emitting light: Only to the person perceiving the light. No actual light exists, and it cannot illuminate an area the perceiver doesn't already know exists.
Illusions reacting to light sources and Illusions reacting to variation in light intensities: Again, only if the person perceiving the light expects it to react.
Illusions blocking light: The person perceiving the illusion would only see the blockage of light if they expect to do so. If they see through the illusion, the light is normal.
Using illusions to bend light: No, because while the perceiver might expect the light to bend, it actually wouldn't bend. Thus, if they try to 'throw light around a corner', it wouldn't illuminate anything, even if the person perceiving it might expect it to do so.
Using illusions to focus light (like a magnifying glass): The person using the illusion to do this might see the focal point of the light, but it wouldn't do anything as it isn't ACTUALLY bending light.

[Zorku]

There is no reason at all to think anything else, nor have I at any time said anything that would suggest such a thought.

Citation needed, and an argument from ignorance fallacy.

You are going to have to explain why you have thus far failed to comprehend this before you raise any further "objections".

Begging the question fallacy.

Actual life mechanics have no bearing on this anymore than they do on the rules for lifting/dragging.

Says the guy that tried to use the big bang to explain how illusions can't be used on boats...

No, reflections are light bouncing off an object.

Actual life mechanics have no bearing on the anymore than they do on the rules for lifting/dragging.

So, give me a good reason to think that, or really any reason. You won't, because you're operating with an understanding of the world gleaned from afternoon discovery channel programs and elementary school level science (which we established in the other thread,) but your current tactic of make bald assertions is less convincing than your old tactic of getting science wrong and rejecting the opinions of experts in favor of off the cuff remarks from experts that said what you wanted to hear.

It would help if you correctly quoted instead of editing my text.

Nope. Had to be bullet points. You string three distinct concepts into the same sentence, and there's no way for me to do that kind of break down without chopping it up. If you disagree with the edited statements then point out what's wrong and why.

Here's what I actually wrote:
He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.

Reject, reject, reject.

Since you've learned to avoid my questions I'll repeat this one:
Do you still claim that "other sensory effects" means reflections and shadows and hands on a clock moving and visual texture and all those other arbitrary rulings you tossed out in the last thread?

You know what you want. That's good! Hold on to that and make your argumentation in that direction (not saying you haven't, speaking figuratively here).

Good general advice, but most of the time I've spent in these threads has been focused on a different want. I want to understand where the actual disagreement lies. I've made a lot of progress on that (except with one impenetrable buffoon...) but I'm not quite sure how to shift from that to arguments that would actually change these positions.

I think its about time I ask myself what I want too. I want it to be simple, I know that much... Ideally I want it to be RAW, or close to it anyway. At the risk of being repetitive, has any precision on RAW about illusions been tweeted or blogged by devs?

Definitive? Depends on how readily you'll call something definitive. Segev has been talking about how little he trusts the tweets, and to his credit the sage advice is explicitly not errata.

You can find most of the tweets on minor illusion on like the 3rd page of this thread, but in summary we've got
"would you allow minor illusion to make a clock with moving hands?"
"yes"
"Some movement is ok in this spell?"
"I'd allow it, but just to be quirky."

and

"Can a shadow monk teleport into the shadow created by an illusion spell?"
"No, that wouldn't really be a shadow."
And then this has some awkward language, but as best as I can read it, it goes
"But illusion spells can create illusory shadows then?"
"They can make the image of an object. Everything else is up to DM ruling."

I take that last bit to indicate that the developers didn't really have any precise concept in their head for the kind of phantom images that we're talking about here, so at best we could only define them beyond that naive take on Pepper's Ghost via technicality. Such an endeavor seems meaningless to me, but everybody brings such different core assumptions about the world into these discussions that I don't really expect us to get past that stuff anyway.

Instead of the spell creating light (in essence, a hologram), it actually changes the perceptions of the person who views the location of the illusion (which is why illusions are defined as an area). More powerful spells have increasingly more control over the perceptions of their viewer, even to the point (for very high level spells) of convincing them that they are physically present (tactile sensations). Of course, gravity doesn't 'sense' anything so the illusions will not support someone any more than normal air would, barring some actual physical presence (like shadow spells).

Since the people that actually advocate for this are failing to respond to you, I'll make this claim for them:

That would mean that the illusions are in the minds of the creatures they effect, yet only "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." So that means stuff like phantasmal killer, not minor illusion or silent image.

-

Also: Do you have any sense of how the illusory reality spell works under your model? I can see being convinced that there is a ladder up to a flying carpet and thinking that you are climbing it, but I don't really understand how you would actually ascend and plant yourself on the rug. It seems like it would have to 'pop' into actual reality, but what happens if two creatures were looking at it and filling in the details differently?

[Fixer]

That would mean that the illusions are in the minds of the creatures they effect, yet only "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." So that means stuff like phantasmal killer, not minor illusion or silent image.

It isn't affecting the mind. The mind is inside the head. It is affecting the perceptions, which are on the outside of the head (the ear is technically part of the outside of the body). It is affecting the 'signals' before they ever reach the mind, which is why they aren't mind-affecting.

A good way to think of this is to realize that illusions can work on a creature with perceptions, but no mind, but cannot work on a creature with a mind, but no perceptions (unless those illusions ALSO affect the mind).

Also: Do you have any sense of how the illusory reality spell works under your model? I can see being convinced that there is a ladder up to a flying carpet and thinking that you are climbing it, but I don't really understand how you would actually ascend and plant yourself on the rug. It seems like it would have to 'pop' into actual reality, but what happens if two creatures were looking at it and filling in the details differently?

Illusory Reality is not a spell; it is a class feature. As such, it alters the wizard's magic itself; transforming it from only affecting perceptions to actually altering reality to reflect the illusions being generated. It is really pulling more evocation into the illusion, rather than remaining purely illusion, from a meta-scientific perspective.

[Segev]

You claimed a reflection is an object without evidence, and it was dismissed.

Nobody made such a claim

The image of a mirror bears reflections, because mirrors do that.

Oh look, it took seconds to search for "reflection" and find you literally making the exact claim you then say no one made. I found it on this same page no less.

I have helpfully provided the quote where you assert that somebody made the claim in question, so that we could see what that asserted claim was. I refute that anybody said that a reflection is an object.

It is no surprise to me that you quote me as saying,

The image of a mirror bears reflections, because mirrors do that.

...and that you then claim that that is equivalent to:

You claimed a reflection is an object

But it is only no surprise because it fits with the pattern of you either having poor reading comprehension skills and exceptionally lazy quote-posting technique (since you had to take the "nobody made such a claim" quote out of context to obscure what the claim I was stating nobody had made was), or you're entirely intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting what's been said by obscuring context and ascribing meaning that, with the context you clearly had when you made the post in question, is obviously not present.



To reiterate:

"The image of a mirror bears reflections," is not equivalent to, "A reflection is an object."

I honestly feel no need to reply to the rest of your post at this point, because you've demonstrated here that it's a waste of time. You will either continue to deliberately misrepresent and distort, or your ability to comprehend what I type is poor enough that I cannot get meaning across to you. I'd give some blame to myself for being unable to be clearer, but when you can read "The image of a mirror bears reflections" and conclude that that is claiming that reflections are objects, the fault is not mine.

[Segev]

None of what you have stated here cannot be explained if the 'object' is not an actual visual image. If it is an aspect of perception, as opposed to an aspect of light, then all your statements can still be true.

Instead of the spell creating light (in essence, a hologram), it actually changes the perceptions of the person who views the location of the illusion (which is why illusions are defined as an area). More powerful spells have increasingly more control over the perceptions of their viewer, even to the point (for very high level spells) of convincing them that they are physically present (tactile sensations). Of course, gravity doesn't 'sense' anything so the illusions will not support someone any more than normal air would, barring some actual physical presence (like shadow spells).

Given that these spells also control perception, rather than mind control, can also explain why it is they work on creatures 'with no mind', but are still able to perceive.

Since the people that actually advocate for this are failing to respond to you, I'll make this claim for them:

That would mean that the illusions are in the minds of the creatures they effect, yet only "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." So that means stuff like phantasmal killer, not minor illusion or silent image.

I just haven't been back to the thread since yesterday, sorry.

Zorku's got a big chunk of my argument right, but I will also point out that the rules for spellcasting don't generally allow you to place effects on targets that are outside the AOE. Phantasmal force, for instance, is placed on the target creature. Minor illusion (and its bigger cousins) places the illusion in space. For it to be magically reaching into your eyeballs and ears (or your brain or mind or whatever you want to say houses "your perceptions"), you would have to be in that 5-ft. cube AoE. This is clearly neither part of the spell nor RAI.

Further, that wouldn't necessarily prevent reflections, even if so. Now, it would limit them to what the viewer imagines they would be, but he'd certainly see himself reflected.

I still don't buy it as a model that is consistent with the spell text, but even if I did, I wouldn't buy "no reflections" based on it.

Also, the whole concept of 'illusions control perception' fits the concept far more than 'can make pretty holograms'.

Not really. For instance, nothing suggests that the illusion requires an intelligent observer. We don't have photography in typical 5e D&D, but if we did, there's nothing in the spell description to suggest that a photo of the illusory object would show nothing there.

Reflections: Yes, because the perceiver would expect to see a reflection if they have ever encountered a reflective surface, but they would only see what they expect, so someone could still sneak up on them because they were unaware they were there.
Shadows: Yes, because the perceiver would expect them, although the shadow isn't ACTUALLY there.

Fair enough, but again, the model still isn't supported by the spell text.

Illusions emitting light: Only to the person perceiving the light. No actual light exists, and it cannot illuminate an area the perceiver doesn't already know exists.

Regardless of model, this is explicitly forbidden by the spell text.

Illusions reacting to light sources and Illusions reacting to variation in light intensities: Again, only if the person perceiving the light expects it to react.
Illusions blocking light: The person perceiving the illusion would only see the blockage of light if they expect to do so. If they see through the illusion, the light is normal.

So what happens if somebody uses an effect which should be painfully bright on the far side of the illusion? Can an illusory parasol allow somebody to stare at the sun (obscured by said parasol) without consequences?

Using illusions to bend light: No, because while the perceiver might expect the light to bend, it actually wouldn't bend. Thus, if they try to 'throw light around a corner', it wouldn't illuminate anything, even if the person perceiving it might expect it to do so.
Using illusions to focus light (like a magnifying glass): The person using the illusion to do this might see the focal point of the light, but it wouldn't do anything as it isn't ACTUALLY bending light.

These bear special mention, because they're one of the things to which people object with the models I propose.

The model I prefer might suggest that light really should be bent, since I prefer that the image actually interact properly with light. The alternate model, where the image doesn't actually block, bend, or reflect light, but the same magic that makes the image look like it's the object makes it look exactly as it would if it were doing so, would answer this by making it LOOK like the light was bent, but wouldn't actually bend it.

The model I prefer answers the question more a prori: The spell cannot create light nor heat, so even if it bends the light it can't do so to the extent that it makes things brighter than the light could natively, nor can it convert the light to concentrated heat such that you could feel it, let alone burn an ant with it. For the same reason that an image of a sunrod can look like it's glowing, but can't actually emit light.

Also: Do you have any sense of how the illusory reality spell works under your model? I can see being convinced that there is a ladder up to a flying carpet and thinking that you are climbing it, but I don't really understand how you would actually ascend and plant yourself on the rug. It seems like it would have to 'pop' into actual reality, but what happens if two creatures were looking at it and filling in the details differently?

This is also a good point. Though it honestly raises funky questions with respect to a phantasmal force you use on yourself. The limit of Illusory Reality is that you must see the illusion, and that you must have cast it.

But I am confident that the writers weren't thinking of illusions as things existing only in the viewers' minds when they came up with Illusory Reality; they were thinking of the illusions as being images that are sitting out there, in the AoE defined by the spell, and Illusory Reality making them solid and real for that minute.

[Fixer]

So what happens if somebody uses an effect which should be painfully bright on the far side of the illusion? Can an illusory parasol allow somebody to stare at the sun (obscured by said parasol) without consequences?

1) There are no rules for this. There are no rules (at least that I am aware of, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) for 'staring into the sun' nor are there rules for 'staring into painfully bright light'. This falls outside the realm of RAW.
2) All the spells that are similar say "creatures in that light". Technically, the light is still present, even if the character cannot perceive it. They would suffer the effects without being able to perceive the source.

[Cybren]

1) There are no rules for this. There are no rules (at least that I am aware of, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) for 'staring into the sun' nor are there rules for 'staring into painfully bright light'. This falls outside the realm of RAW.

We don't need rules for things we have obvious frames of reference for in real life. This is such a silly and pervasive attitude "oh it's not in the game so it's not RAW". It's a roleplaying game, not chutes and ladders.

2) All the spells that are similar say "creatures in that light". Technically, the light is still present, even if the character cannot perceive it. They would suffer the effects without being able to perceive the source.

This is a stretch requiring several levels of assumptions

[Fixer]

We don't need rules for things we have obvious frames of reference for in real life. This is such a silly and pervasive attitude "oh it's not in the game so it's not RAW". It's a roleplaying game, not chutes and ladders.

This is a stretch requiring several levels of assumptions

Instead of being horribly dismissive and insulting, perhaps you should read the thread again. We were discussing mechanics, not role-playing. You cannot have official rules for things where no official rules are written. You can say, as a GM, "you look into the sun and are blinded for a while," but there are no mechanical benefits or hindrances to this. It is, as you say, roleplaying, or at best home-rules.

I was asked how my theory would handle certain situations and I answered with mechanical rules, which what was being discussed. If you do not like the answers, responding with dismissive insults only demonstrates your own lack of arguments. Either offer up a better theory (that doesn't requires a doctorate to understand or read), or shore up the theory offered, or do not.

[Zorku]

It isn't affecting the mind. The mind is inside the head. It is affecting the perceptions, which are on the outside of the head (the ear is technically part of the outside of the body). It is affecting the 'signals' before they ever reach the mind, which is why they aren't mind-affecting.

A good way to think of this is to realize that illusions can work on a creature with perceptions, but no mind, but cannot work on a creature with a mind, but no perceptions (unless those illusions ALSO affect the mind).

I can't say how they will react to that claim, but I don't get it. The ears and eyes are outside of the brain, but I don't think your perceptions count as being outside of your mind.

Illusory Reality is not a spell; it is a class feature. As such, it alters the wizard's magic itself; transforming it from only affecting perceptions to actually altering reality to reflect the illusions being generated. It is really pulling more evocation into the illusion, rather than remaining purely illusion, from a meta-scientific perspective.

That makes enough sense, but I'm still curious about if the illusion has this big snap-moment where the creatures that have bad mental models for stuff like reflections get to see the evocation style mirror suddenly reflecting real stuff.

I have helpfully provided the quote where you assert that somebody made the claim in question, so that we could see what that asserted claim was. I refute that anybody said that a reflection is an object.

Strictly speaking I've said exactly that, but only to Vogon in an attempt to get it through his thick skull that his assertions are lacking explanatory elements that all of the more effective communicators around him include in their posts.

For it to be magically reaching into your eyeballs and ears (or your brain or mind or whatever you want to say houses "your perceptions"), you would have to be in that 5-ft. cube AoE. This is clearly neither part of the spell nor RAI.

Notably, the ancient world notion of "something coming out of your eyes and going to an object in order for you to see it," does involve that particular perception moving into the area of effect of these illusions.

You cannot have official rules for things where no official rules are written.

You can absolutely have a DM ruling that staring into the Sun through an illusion does or does not result in damaged eyes, and the book encourages such things.

However, I find the argument that there are no rules for staring into the Sun to be very weak reasoning. We DO have rules for seeing the eyes of a Medusa (within 30 ft) and by whatever explanation of how, it seems that actually seeing this thing inflicts a condition upon a character. You can argue that it's different from staring into the Sun in any number of ways, but it is doubtless similar in some ways, and we can explore that.

Either offer up a better theory (that doesn't requires a doctorate to understand or read), or shore up the theory offered, or do not.

I'm not going to remain particularly polite if you continue to try and move the burden of proof like that. You've made several claims and nobody is obligated to accept them until you have backed them up with logic and/or ample demonstration.

[Fixer]

There are three major theories about pure illusions from what I can tell (not phantasms, illusory reality, or shadow magic):

Illusions are hard light (they react to and with light). HARD LIGHT option
Illusions are soft light (they do not react to or with light). SOFT LIGHT option
Illusions are alterations of perception (they do not interact with light at all). PERCEPTION option

Now, examining each one for the criteria mentioned previously.

CRITERIA                       HARD LIGHT                SOFT LIGHT               PERCEPTION

Reflections                    True Reflections          Doesn't work             Allows reflections of known information
Shadows                        True Shadows              No Shadows               Shadows are observed if expected by perceiver but anything affected by shadow, or requiring shadow, doesn't work.
Illusions Emitting Light       Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Does not allow, but the perceiver sees the light which doesn't shine upon anything (so no actual illumination).
Illusions reacting to light    Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Allows but only what the perceiver would expect.
Illusions blocking light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light gets through and affects normally, but the perceiver doesn't see it).
Illusions bending light        Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the perceiver doesn't learn anything new, and the light doesn't shine upon anything).
Illusions focusing light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light looks focused but doesn't seem to affect anything differently).

Now, of these, which looks most like illusion magic?

Let us cover this first.

[Cybren]

Instead of being horribly dismissive and insulting, perhaps you should read the thread again. We were discussing mechanics, not role-playing. You cannot have official rules for things where no official rules are written. You can say, as a GM, "you look into the sun and are blinded for a while," but there are no mechanical benefits or hindrances to this. It is, as you say, roleplaying, or at best home-rules.

I was asked how my theory would handle certain situations and I answered with mechanical rules, which what was being discussed. If you do not like the answers, responding with dismissive insults only demonstrates your own lack of arguments. Either offer up a better theory (that doesn't requires a doctorate to understand or read), or shore up the theory offered, or do not.

If my post was dismissive, it was dismissive of a bad attitude that actively diminishes the culture surrounding RPGs.

[Segev]

There are three major theories about pure illusions from what I can tell (not phantasms, illusory reality, or shadow magic):

Illusions are hard light (they react to and with light). HARD LIGHT option
Illusions are soft light (they do not react to or with light). SOFT LIGHT option
Illusions are alterations of perception (they do not interact with light at all). PERCEPTION option

Now, examining each one for the criteria mentioned previously.

CRITERIA                       HARD LIGHT                SOFT LIGHT               PERCEPTION

Reflections                    True Reflections          Doesn't work             Allows reflections of known information
Shadows                        True Shadows              No Shadows               Shadows are observed if expected by perceiver but anything affected by shadow, or requiring shadow, doesn't work.
Illusions Emitting Light       Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Does not allow, but the perceiver sees the light which doesn't shine upon anything (so no actual illumination).
Illusions reacting to light    Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Allows but only what the perceiver would expect.
Illusions blocking light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light gets through and affects normally, but the perceiver doesn't see it).
Illusions bending light        Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the perceiver doesn't learn anything new, and the light doesn't shine upon anything).
Illusions focusing light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light looks focused but doesn't seem to affect anything differently).

Now, of these, which looks most like illusion magic?

Let us cover this first.

It's worth noting that the "hard light" option is the closest to what the spell allows, since the only points of disagreement with the text are explicitly limited in the text. This would indicate that the text expects that, barring those limitations, the illusion could reasonably be expected to do those things it bans.

[Zorku]

There are three major theories about pure illusions from what I can tell (not phantasms, illusory reality, or shadow magic):

Illusions are hard light (they react to and with light). HARD LIGHT option
Illusions are soft light (they do not react to or with light). SOFT LIGHT option
Illusions are alterations of perception (they do not interact with light at all). PERCEPTION option

Now, examining each one for the criteria mentioned previously.

CRITERIA                       HARD LIGHT                SOFT LIGHT               PERCEPTION

Reflections                    True Reflections          Doesn't work             Allows reflections of known information
Shadows                        True Shadows              No Shadows               Shadows are observed if expected by perceiver but anything affected by shadow, or requiring shadow, doesn't work.
Illusions Emitting Light       Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Does not allow, but the perceiver sees the light which doesn't shine upon anything (so no actual illumination).
Illusions reacting to light    Should be allowed         Should not be allowed    Allows but only what the perceiver would expect.
Illusions blocking light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light gets through and affects normally, but the perceiver doesn't see it).
Illusions bending light        Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the perceiver doesn't learn anything new, and the light doesn't shine upon anything).
Illusions focusing light       Totally allows            Doesn't Work             Doesn't REALLY work, but it LOOKS like it works (the light looks focused but doesn't seem to affect anything differently).

Now, of these, which looks most like illusion magic?

Let us cover this first.

They all look like illusion magic to me.
Some of the results on your chart are mistaken though. In the case of hard light illusions emitting light (relative to your phantasmal light,) we can explain the lack of illumination in terms of the intensity of light that the spell can produce. In the case of your soft light illusion not allowing shadows you've ignored the ability of illusions to block line of sight (else all illusions would be transparent all of the time,) and if they can prevent you from seeing through them then some translucent material only partially prevents you from seeing through it, and thus such an illusion would have the ability to greatly dim the apparent light within the area of effect (even while we take it for granted that the soft light illusions do not actually block light.) This is more of an illusory shadow, but you weren't really here for the part of the conversation where we went into the difference between actually casting a shadow and simply appearing to, so I have no idea what your take on that is.

As such, you seem to be at least two categories short of covering the range of interpretations present within this thread. I suspect that you're closer to five categories short, but I can't actually come up with any model for how Vogonjeltz thinks any of this works.

I will once again point out the archaic notion of eyes emitting some 'thing' that goes and bumps against objects in order for you to see things.

With illusions that do not interact with light but do interact with eye beams, your soft light or quasi-phantasmal illusions get reflections, shadows within the area of effect, the appearance of casting light within the area of effect but no illumination of real objects within the area, illusions reacting to illumination, illusions blocking light based on which creature is looking at/through them, no bending of light, and no focusing of light but functional magnifying glasses. Of the options presented thus far this seems the most like illusion magic, presuming you do not subscribe to the mind's eye paint brush analogy I presented much earlier in the thread.

[Vogonjeltz]

Now, of these, which looks most like illusion magic?

Let us cover this first.

To be clear, the canon answer is what you termed Soft Light.

Although I'd also point out that Illusions are just deceptions of the senses, but it's a question of how good a deception the illusion is. In the case of Minor Illusion, it's not that good. (Doesn't do any sensory effects at all, just the image of an object). Heck, one has to be specially trained in the School of Illusion just to get both image AND a convincing sound with it.

Segev and Zorku have been arguing for the full interaction as if the illusion was simply a real object. The obvious failing there is that there'd be no method at all to differentiate an illusion from the real thing, so rationally Investigation should be incapable of revealing the illusion as being false. For that matter, behaving as a real object would require violating the restrictions present in the spell text.

If you accept their dislike of the rules, immediate cognitive dissonance is the result as no creature would be capable of telling illusion from reality without touching a thing, and in the case of Hallucinatory Terrain even that might fail.

The Perception category you mention similarly fails to sustain under scrutiny. The creature thinks the light illuminates an area, but it doesn't really? Ok what do they see? There's no resolution to such a situation. If the spell is creating a single effect, how is it also creating all these consequences of this behavior? How can you justify the creation of 2+ illusions effectively when most spells limit them to one effect?

[Fixer]

According to the responses thus far, there is no consensus about how basic illusion works, let alone bringing in things like phantasms and such.

Therefore, I will not further waste my time in this conversation. To each their own.

[tieren]

The real issue is minor illusion doesn't work.

All illusions are visual phenomenon (except the phantasm ones). They make an image of an object that is not an actual object, it is just a visual phenomenon. Therefore you can not not make a minor illusion that looks like something minor illusion could create because the spell only does objects, not phenomenon. Since the spell can't make an image that can look like an image made by the spell it can't do anything. Ergo minor illusion doesn't work.

[Zorku]

To be clear, the canon answer is what you termed Soft Light.

Although I'd also point out that Illusions are just deceptions of the senses, but it's a question of how good a deception the illusion is. In the case of Minor Illusion, it's not that good. (Doesn't do any sensory effects at all, just the image of an object). Heck, one has to be specially trained in the School of Illusion just to get both image AND a convincing sound with it.

That's making both happen with the same action. You just need more time to prepare if you're not an illusion school wizard.

Segev and Zorku have been arguing for the full interaction as if the illusion was simply a real object.

You are mistaken about what I am arguing.

The obvious failing there is that there'd be no method at all to differentiate an illusion from the real thing,

Also a mistake. The closest I have come to that in any idea I have proposed is that the exact nature of the flaw has to do with what the DC check is set at. Hedge wizards misalign patterns in moderately obvious ways, archmagi get it so close that it takes a master investigator to pick out the exact minute details that are "off." By which I mean, this is a narration thing that's the DM's job and it varies from table to table.

Back when we all read every single post in a thread and replied to all of it I was suggesting a lot of things just to see what people actually meant when they came down hard against how other people run illusions, and you seem to have mixed that up with actual claims that I have made. After a dozen or so responses where you've completely lost track of the context in which I raised some issue (which is probably more of an issue with the way this forum formats quotes than it is with your memory,) I understand why this error happened, but you're all too eager to double down on the equivalent of television static whenever I try to untangle the mix up.

For that matter, behaving as a real object would require violating the restrictions present in the spell text.

You've yet to demonstrate that the interpretation of the spell text that you're using here has any basis in the rules, which is a shame because you found a fruitful avenue in the last thread and then never pursued it.

If you accept their dislike of the rules, immediate cognitive dissonance is the result as no creature would be capable of telling illusion from reality without touching a thing, and in the case of Hallucinatory Terrain even that might fail.

Immediate congnitive dissonance is grounds for dismissal? Well then, the perpetual cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to run with your arbitrary model should be more than sufficient to let you know that you're wrong.

The Perception category you mention similarly fails to sustain under scrutiny. The creature thinks the light illuminates an area, but it doesn't really? Ok what do they see?

If it's a torch then that's simple: they don't see very much at all, just like normal when a torch is in front of you. They've just been looking at a lot of fire in the dark, so now they'll just assume that they're night blind. If they wish to see other things in the dark they'll need to look away for somewhere between 10-30 seconds, but it's weird to be looking for things in the dark like that if you aren't carrying your own torch, and keeping the flame well out of your field of view. Light that shoots off in all directions is actually pretty terrible for seeing things in the dark, only really giving you the faintest impression of outlines and things after perhaps 3 feet.

Knowing you, I have to talk about dark vision, but by the same measure you would expect it to behave the same way (even moreso due to the sunlight sensitivity that drow, duergar, and (however the fook you spell) svirfneblin, all exhibit. This world appears to fully accept that your eyes need to adjust to lighting conditions, and we lack any mechanics for that for exactly the same reason that minor illusion doesn't tell you exactly what the flaws are: this is a DM narration thing.

There's no resolution to such a situation. If the spell is creating a single effect, how is it also creating all these consequences of this behavior? How can you justify the creation of 2+ illusions effectively when most spells limit them to one effect?

We've been telling you this for quite awhile now: By counting them as "one" thing.

The real issue is minor illusion doesn't work.

All illusions are visual phenomenon (except the phantasm ones). They make an image of an object that is not an actual object, it is just a visual phenomenon. Therefore you can not not make a minor illusion that looks like something minor illusion could create because the spell only does objects, not phenomenon. Since the spell can't make an image that can look like an image made by the spell it can't do anything. Ergo minor illusion doesn't work.

The core rules for 5e don't give me any reason to think that the developers intended to include recursive elements, and this seems like more of an argument against interpretations of disallowing minor illusions based on the phenomena that they look like and simply going back to "is there a real life object that I can refer to?" As per the sage advice, everything else is up to the DM.

[Laurefindel]

I used to dismiss the "the illusion is actually in your head" interpretation over the "the illusion exist outside the observer's perception", but the last sentence of Minor illusion got me thinking, can it be both?

If a creature uses its action to examine the sound or image, the creature can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.

(emphasis mine)

Is the illusion really faint and pale, and our mind completes it and perceive it as 'real' until revealed and understood as an illusion?