If I create magical darkness with the Silent Image spell, can I see through it if I have the Devil's Sight warlock invocation?Can a ghost see through the Darkness spell?Does magic missile hit silent image's illusory creature?How should a Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation work?Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness?Can the spell Silent Image be used to change your face?Does Devil's Sight allow you to see in darkness as though it was normal light?Does the Maddening Darkness spell affect the caster even if they can see through it using Devil's Sight?Can a warlock use the Ghostly Gaze eldritch invocation to see invisible objects or those within a Darkness spell?Can the Witch Sight warlock invocation see through the Mirror Image spell?Does a warlock using the Darkness/Devil's Sight combo still have advantage on ranged attacks against a target outside the Darkness?
If absolute velocity does not exist, how can we say a rocket accelerates in empty space?
What game uses six-sided dice with symbols as well as numbers on the 5 and 6 faces?
Must I use my personal social media account for work?
Why are ambiguous grammars bad?
Can an open source licence be revoked if it violates employer's IP?
How can religions without a hell discourage evil-doing?
Part of my house is inexplicably gone
Do they make "karaoke" versions of concertos for solo practice?
What to do when the GM gives the party an overpowered item?
Changing the PK column of a data extension without completely recreating it
Why is it bad to use your whole foot in rock climbing
What publication claimed that Michael Jackson died in a nuclear holocaust?
Is it true that "only photographers care about noise"?
What's the relation between у.е. to USD?
Is it possible to have battery technology that can't be duplicated?
What do you call the action of "describing events as they happen" like sports anchors do?
How to import .txt file with missing data?
Identification: what type of connector does the pictured socket take?
Do Veracrypt encrypted volumes have any kind of brute force protection?
David slept with Bathsheba because she was pure?? What does that mean?
Which are the methodologies for interpreting Vedas?
Tiffeneau–Demjanov rearrangement products
How to remove the empty page that is placed after the ToC, List of figures and List of tables
Why did Robert pick unworthy men for the White Cloaks?
If I create magical darkness with the Silent Image spell, can I see through it if I have the Devil's Sight warlock invocation?
Can a ghost see through the Darkness spell?Does magic missile hit silent image's illusory creature?How should a Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation work?Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness?Can the spell Silent Image be used to change your face?Does Devil's Sight allow you to see in darkness as though it was normal light?Does the Maddening Darkness spell affect the caster even if they can see through it using Devil's Sight?Can a warlock use the Ghostly Gaze eldritch invocation to see invisible objects or those within a Darkness spell?Can the Witch Sight warlock invocation see through the Mirror Image spell?Does a warlock using the Darkness/Devil's Sight combo still have advantage on ranged attacks against a target outside the Darkness?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Since Devil's Sight allows one to see through magical and nonmagical darkness, and Silent Image can create any visual phenomenon, can I create darkness as a visual phenomenon which Devil's Sight can then see through?
dnd-5e spells warlock illusion eldritch-invocations
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since Devil's Sight allows one to see through magical and nonmagical darkness, and Silent Image can create any visual phenomenon, can I create darkness as a visual phenomenon which Devil's Sight can then see through?
dnd-5e spells warlock illusion eldritch-invocations
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
2
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since Devil's Sight allows one to see through magical and nonmagical darkness, and Silent Image can create any visual phenomenon, can I create darkness as a visual phenomenon which Devil's Sight can then see through?
dnd-5e spells warlock illusion eldritch-invocations
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
$endgroup$
Since Devil's Sight allows one to see through magical and nonmagical darkness, and Silent Image can create any visual phenomenon, can I create darkness as a visual phenomenon which Devil's Sight can then see through?
dnd-5e spells warlock illusion eldritch-invocations
dnd-5e spells warlock illusion eldritch-invocations
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 28 at 19:59
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
30.6k5112185
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
asked May 28 at 17:02
guessguess
730217
730217
3
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
2
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
2
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05
3
3
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
2
2
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Silent Image probably does not create the same effect as Darkness
Silent Image, a 1st-level spell says:
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon [...] The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
[...]
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.
The wording of Silent Image is a little vague because it allows the caster a lot of room for creative use but it is probably unbalancing to allow it to duplicate the effect of the higher level Darkness spell. The fact that a creature can investigate it to nullify the effect means that it is not as strong as the true Darkness spell and so there is room to argue both ways.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the Silent Image spell does not convey any sort of effect or benefit to the generated image ("It is purely visual"). If you create the image of lava, it does not deal fire damage to any creature that stands in it. (That would be what Phantasmal Force, another higher level spell, does.) So it shouldn't convey the benefits of Darkness spell by the same token.
Even if you did rule that Silent Image replicated Darkness, in actual use, it might not function as well. The rule for Silent Image contains the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
This creates a conflict: A creature or object can move through both a true Darkness and an illusory version just as easily. But the fact that the Silent Image version specifically states that "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" means that there must be some difference between the two (whatever that is) which causes it to not function as a true Darkness.
In the cleanest presentation, a creature might be outside of the effect and look through it at another creature that is also outside the effect. But as soon as, say, a projectile traveled through it, that would arguably be physical interaction with the illusory darkness and therefore reveal it to be normal darkness.
In short, it's messier to give Silent Image the ability to replicate all aspects of the Darkness spell than it is to say that it can create an area of darkness that lacks the full benefit of Darkness and therefore it's probably a better to interpret the rules so that it does not.
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the rules, we know that you can create an illusion of darkness, and I suppose even magical darkness. The rules are not entirely clear, but by logic there are only two possible ways a DM could rule on this:
Interpretation #1: Yes.
Since you copy magical darkness so perfectly, the Warlock's Devil's Sight would work, and they see through it. Even if they don't do a great job, it would still be darkness, and the Devil's Sight should work on it. It seems reasonable that any darkness effect would be covered by the term:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 ft
Interpretation #2: No.
A weaker argument could be made that because the illusionist doesn't know about/can't copy the magical nature correctly just create "blackness" that isn't really magical darkness. Since it doesn't work like magical darkness, the Warlock not being able to see through it would have reason to believe something odd is going on and would have a reason to investigate to learn if it is an illusion.
Odd Edge Case
Note: there is (at least) one form of darkness that Crawford tweeted Devil's Sight is known not to work on, and that is the void created by hunger of Hadar. One small issue to that is that I don't think it made it into Sage Advice, and so despite being official ruling when it was made, it wouldn't be under the new Sage Advice header. Take all of that for what you will, but an illusion of the void, would be harder to rule.
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148848%2fif-i-create-magical-darkness-with-the-silent-image-spell-can-i-see-through-it-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Silent Image probably does not create the same effect as Darkness
Silent Image, a 1st-level spell says:
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon [...] The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
[...]
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.
The wording of Silent Image is a little vague because it allows the caster a lot of room for creative use but it is probably unbalancing to allow it to duplicate the effect of the higher level Darkness spell. The fact that a creature can investigate it to nullify the effect means that it is not as strong as the true Darkness spell and so there is room to argue both ways.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the Silent Image spell does not convey any sort of effect or benefit to the generated image ("It is purely visual"). If you create the image of lava, it does not deal fire damage to any creature that stands in it. (That would be what Phantasmal Force, another higher level spell, does.) So it shouldn't convey the benefits of Darkness spell by the same token.
Even if you did rule that Silent Image replicated Darkness, in actual use, it might not function as well. The rule for Silent Image contains the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
This creates a conflict: A creature or object can move through both a true Darkness and an illusory version just as easily. But the fact that the Silent Image version specifically states that "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" means that there must be some difference between the two (whatever that is) which causes it to not function as a true Darkness.
In the cleanest presentation, a creature might be outside of the effect and look through it at another creature that is also outside the effect. But as soon as, say, a projectile traveled through it, that would arguably be physical interaction with the illusory darkness and therefore reveal it to be normal darkness.
In short, it's messier to give Silent Image the ability to replicate all aspects of the Darkness spell than it is to say that it can create an area of darkness that lacks the full benefit of Darkness and therefore it's probably a better to interpret the rules so that it does not.
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Silent Image probably does not create the same effect as Darkness
Silent Image, a 1st-level spell says:
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon [...] The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
[...]
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.
The wording of Silent Image is a little vague because it allows the caster a lot of room for creative use but it is probably unbalancing to allow it to duplicate the effect of the higher level Darkness spell. The fact that a creature can investigate it to nullify the effect means that it is not as strong as the true Darkness spell and so there is room to argue both ways.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the Silent Image spell does not convey any sort of effect or benefit to the generated image ("It is purely visual"). If you create the image of lava, it does not deal fire damage to any creature that stands in it. (That would be what Phantasmal Force, another higher level spell, does.) So it shouldn't convey the benefits of Darkness spell by the same token.
Even if you did rule that Silent Image replicated Darkness, in actual use, it might not function as well. The rule for Silent Image contains the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
This creates a conflict: A creature or object can move through both a true Darkness and an illusory version just as easily. But the fact that the Silent Image version specifically states that "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" means that there must be some difference between the two (whatever that is) which causes it to not function as a true Darkness.
In the cleanest presentation, a creature might be outside of the effect and look through it at another creature that is also outside the effect. But as soon as, say, a projectile traveled through it, that would arguably be physical interaction with the illusory darkness and therefore reveal it to be normal darkness.
In short, it's messier to give Silent Image the ability to replicate all aspects of the Darkness spell than it is to say that it can create an area of darkness that lacks the full benefit of Darkness and therefore it's probably a better to interpret the rules so that it does not.
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Silent Image probably does not create the same effect as Darkness
Silent Image, a 1st-level spell says:
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon [...] The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
[...]
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.
The wording of Silent Image is a little vague because it allows the caster a lot of room for creative use but it is probably unbalancing to allow it to duplicate the effect of the higher level Darkness spell. The fact that a creature can investigate it to nullify the effect means that it is not as strong as the true Darkness spell and so there is room to argue both ways.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the Silent Image spell does not convey any sort of effect or benefit to the generated image ("It is purely visual"). If you create the image of lava, it does not deal fire damage to any creature that stands in it. (That would be what Phantasmal Force, another higher level spell, does.) So it shouldn't convey the benefits of Darkness spell by the same token.
Even if you did rule that Silent Image replicated Darkness, in actual use, it might not function as well. The rule for Silent Image contains the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
This creates a conflict: A creature or object can move through both a true Darkness and an illusory version just as easily. But the fact that the Silent Image version specifically states that "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" means that there must be some difference between the two (whatever that is) which causes it to not function as a true Darkness.
In the cleanest presentation, a creature might be outside of the effect and look through it at another creature that is also outside the effect. But as soon as, say, a projectile traveled through it, that would arguably be physical interaction with the illusory darkness and therefore reveal it to be normal darkness.
In short, it's messier to give Silent Image the ability to replicate all aspects of the Darkness spell than it is to say that it can create an area of darkness that lacks the full benefit of Darkness and therefore it's probably a better to interpret the rules so that it does not.
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
$endgroup$
Silent Image probably does not create the same effect as Darkness
Silent Image, a 1st-level spell says:
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon [...] The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
[...]
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.
The wording of Silent Image is a little vague because it allows the caster a lot of room for creative use but it is probably unbalancing to allow it to duplicate the effect of the higher level Darkness spell. The fact that a creature can investigate it to nullify the effect means that it is not as strong as the true Darkness spell and so there is room to argue both ways.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the Silent Image spell does not convey any sort of effect or benefit to the generated image ("It is purely visual"). If you create the image of lava, it does not deal fire damage to any creature that stands in it. (That would be what Phantasmal Force, another higher level spell, does.) So it shouldn't convey the benefits of Darkness spell by the same token.
Even if you did rule that Silent Image replicated Darkness, in actual use, it might not function as well. The rule for Silent Image contains the sentence "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
This creates a conflict: A creature or object can move through both a true Darkness and an illusory version just as easily. But the fact that the Silent Image version specifically states that "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" means that there must be some difference between the two (whatever that is) which causes it to not function as a true Darkness.
In the cleanest presentation, a creature might be outside of the effect and look through it at another creature that is also outside the effect. But as soon as, say, a projectile traveled through it, that would arguably be physical interaction with the illusory darkness and therefore reveal it to be normal darkness.
In short, it's messier to give Silent Image the ability to replicate all aspects of the Darkness spell than it is to say that it can create an area of darkness that lacks the full benefit of Darkness and therefore it's probably a better to interpret the rules so that it does not.
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 29 at 0:19
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
answered May 28 at 17:46
RykaraRykara
8,0272559
8,0272559
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
this is reasonable, but both Silent Image and Major Image mention being able to both create a visual phenomenon, and the spell descriptions both mention that they are images, it doesn't actually mention anything along the lines of "visual image" in the description for the Silent Image spell.
$endgroup$
– guess
May 28 at 18:11
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess I went ahead and removed that paragraph. I must have skimmed the first line of the spell too quickly. Thanks for pointing that out!
$endgroup$
– Rykara
May 28 at 18:15
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
@guess A visible phenomenon, not visual. Darkness is not visible; it's the opposite of visible.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
May 29 at 0:47
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
$begingroup$
I'm not sure illusory darkness could be physically interacted with. As a DM, I don't think I'd give the 'instant reveal of illusion' just for touching it, because they wouldn't be touching darkness anyway.
$endgroup$
– Poetically Psychotic
May 29 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the rules, we know that you can create an illusion of darkness, and I suppose even magical darkness. The rules are not entirely clear, but by logic there are only two possible ways a DM could rule on this:
Interpretation #1: Yes.
Since you copy magical darkness so perfectly, the Warlock's Devil's Sight would work, and they see through it. Even if they don't do a great job, it would still be darkness, and the Devil's Sight should work on it. It seems reasonable that any darkness effect would be covered by the term:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 ft
Interpretation #2: No.
A weaker argument could be made that because the illusionist doesn't know about/can't copy the magical nature correctly just create "blackness" that isn't really magical darkness. Since it doesn't work like magical darkness, the Warlock not being able to see through it would have reason to believe something odd is going on and would have a reason to investigate to learn if it is an illusion.
Odd Edge Case
Note: there is (at least) one form of darkness that Crawford tweeted Devil's Sight is known not to work on, and that is the void created by hunger of Hadar. One small issue to that is that I don't think it made it into Sage Advice, and so despite being official ruling when it was made, it wouldn't be under the new Sage Advice header. Take all of that for what you will, but an illusion of the void, would be harder to rule.
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the rules, we know that you can create an illusion of darkness, and I suppose even magical darkness. The rules are not entirely clear, but by logic there are only two possible ways a DM could rule on this:
Interpretation #1: Yes.
Since you copy magical darkness so perfectly, the Warlock's Devil's Sight would work, and they see through it. Even if they don't do a great job, it would still be darkness, and the Devil's Sight should work on it. It seems reasonable that any darkness effect would be covered by the term:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 ft
Interpretation #2: No.
A weaker argument could be made that because the illusionist doesn't know about/can't copy the magical nature correctly just create "blackness" that isn't really magical darkness. Since it doesn't work like magical darkness, the Warlock not being able to see through it would have reason to believe something odd is going on and would have a reason to investigate to learn if it is an illusion.
Odd Edge Case
Note: there is (at least) one form of darkness that Crawford tweeted Devil's Sight is known not to work on, and that is the void created by hunger of Hadar. One small issue to that is that I don't think it made it into Sage Advice, and so despite being official ruling when it was made, it wouldn't be under the new Sage Advice header. Take all of that for what you will, but an illusion of the void, would be harder to rule.
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the rules, we know that you can create an illusion of darkness, and I suppose even magical darkness. The rules are not entirely clear, but by logic there are only two possible ways a DM could rule on this:
Interpretation #1: Yes.
Since you copy magical darkness so perfectly, the Warlock's Devil's Sight would work, and they see through it. Even if they don't do a great job, it would still be darkness, and the Devil's Sight should work on it. It seems reasonable that any darkness effect would be covered by the term:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 ft
Interpretation #2: No.
A weaker argument could be made that because the illusionist doesn't know about/can't copy the magical nature correctly just create "blackness" that isn't really magical darkness. Since it doesn't work like magical darkness, the Warlock not being able to see through it would have reason to believe something odd is going on and would have a reason to investigate to learn if it is an illusion.
Odd Edge Case
Note: there is (at least) one form of darkness that Crawford tweeted Devil's Sight is known not to work on, and that is the void created by hunger of Hadar. One small issue to that is that I don't think it made it into Sage Advice, and so despite being official ruling when it was made, it wouldn't be under the new Sage Advice header. Take all of that for what you will, but an illusion of the void, would be harder to rule.
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
$endgroup$
By the rules, we know that you can create an illusion of darkness, and I suppose even magical darkness. The rules are not entirely clear, but by logic there are only two possible ways a DM could rule on this:
Interpretation #1: Yes.
Since you copy magical darkness so perfectly, the Warlock's Devil's Sight would work, and they see through it. Even if they don't do a great job, it would still be darkness, and the Devil's Sight should work on it. It seems reasonable that any darkness effect would be covered by the term:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 ft
Interpretation #2: No.
A weaker argument could be made that because the illusionist doesn't know about/can't copy the magical nature correctly just create "blackness" that isn't really magical darkness. Since it doesn't work like magical darkness, the Warlock not being able to see through it would have reason to believe something odd is going on and would have a reason to investigate to learn if it is an illusion.
Odd Edge Case
Note: there is (at least) one form of darkness that Crawford tweeted Devil's Sight is known not to work on, and that is the void created by hunger of Hadar. One small issue to that is that I don't think it made it into Sage Advice, and so despite being official ruling when it was made, it wouldn't be under the new Sage Advice header. Take all of that for what you will, but an illusion of the void, would be harder to rule.
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
edited May 29 at 0:16
V2Blast♦
30.6k5112185
30.6k5112185
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
answered May 28 at 17:25
J. A. StreichJ. A. Streich
26.4k179131
26.4k179131
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148848%2fif-i-create-magical-darkness-with-the-silent-image-spell-can-i-see-through-it-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Related: Can I Use Major Image to Create Darkness? and How can Silent Image be used to obscure vision in combat in 5E?
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose♦
May 28 at 17:04
$begingroup$
Just as a note, those related are not dupes. Identical answers do not mean identical questions. But having said that, is there something in those questions that doesn't answer yours?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
May 28 at 17:05
2
$begingroup$
The trivial answer to the question is "yes, because you know it's an illusion and you don't even need the invocation". But I believe you're asking whether someone other than the caster can see through this given Devil's Sight - is that correct?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
May 28 at 20:05