You create an illusory copy of yourself that lasts for the duration. The copy can appear at any location within range that you have seen before, regardless of intervening obstacles. The illusion looks and sounds like you but is intangible. If the illusion takes any damage, it disappears, and the spell ends.
You can use your action to move this illusion up to twice your speed, and make it gesture, speak, and behave in whatever way you choose. It mimics your mannerisms perfectly.
You can see through its eyes and hear through its ears as if you were in its space. On your turn as a bonus action, you can switch from using its senses to using your own, or back again. While you are using its senses, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings.
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, and any noise it makes sounds hollow to the creature.
* - (a small replica of you made from materials worth at least 5 gp)
High level, but really cool spell.
This really seems to be a garbage spell that requires house rules to make it at all useful for any purpose I can see. I'd rule the wizard can effectively cast spells through the PI just as they were able to do in prior editions.
Honestly this seems more like a spell you use to check in on someplace within 500 miles of you. It could be a very powerful option for scouting or ne used like the holograms from Star Wars. I like using it as the BBEG to check in on the party or to deliver my evil speech in a form they can't interrupt by attacking.
@Charmandenator – There are a lot of spells that I'm having to come to some level of acceptance with in regards to how they can be used, and it *may* be that this will be one of them, but I don't know. I prefer a higher level of epic fantasy in my own games than I feel is present within RAW, though there are occasions where I agree this or that spell was previously too much. Certainly project image of a much prior edition was interpreted by me as being quite a bit more powerful, perhaps a shade below a simulacrum. You would cast the spell, become protected by Improved / Greater Invisibility, and cast spells through the illusion as if it was you. I'm currently running a pair of games where I hold to RAW rules, but I'm definitely making notes as I go in regards to changes I'd prefer to make. Apologies if any of the vitriol from the prior comment splashed you, I would agree I take the changes to D&D too seriously, as though they were some sort of personal attack on my favorite toys growing up or such. :embarrassed_shrug
Oh, don't worry about that. I've so far liked the balance of 5e compared to previous editions but my experience is a little limited. I just like looking for different ways to use magic and find this spell very intriguing for that. I'm planning on using it to scout out an enemy base in my next game because we're in a war were we are lacking information right now and this seems like a decent way to scout without risking my wizard body.
I actually appreciate hearing about previous editions because it can give me extra ideas when designing my own game. Each game is unique and I always love to hear how others view the current edition.
How does an illusion take damage though? Does it have an AC or just anything that can deal damage that attacks it counts as damaging it? So if I see this illusion and I smack it, does the spell end? Can the illusion at least attempt to dodge?
Yes, I think the spell is broken. The two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the illusion is intangible, it cannot take damage. If it can take damage, it is not intangible. Since the spell description does not define an AC for the illusion, we're even further in the dark here with the RAW. I've considered interpreting "behave in whatever way you choose" to include casting spells through the illusion and home-brewing a similar spell that defines exactly what the caster can do with it. I've also considered balancing my so-for-theoretical home-brew version by making it clear that although the illusion is intangible (and invulnerable), the caster is subject to psychic damage if that comes into play.
If I use this spell (Project Image) and speak to another person through my connected illusion, but then my illusion is hit by Disonant Whisper (since I can hear through his ears), do I get psychic damage as long as I am connected to the illusion? Or can the illusion not even be targeted?
Hope you can help me 😉
I believe the way it works is "Intangible is only an inability to touch; some damage, such as psychic damage for example, perhaps necrotic and radiant as well, don't need their targets to necessarily be physical in order to harm them."
I. E., I don't believe intangible means what you think it means, and this spell is more evidence of such than a mistake.
I believe the RAW of the situation would mean the illusion would take the damage and dissipate, but I could very much see a GM overriding and making your actual character be the victim.
So you're the DM, and one of your players casts this spell. How will you determine which actions cause damage to the illusory projection? I say the spell is broken because you will have no basis for making that decision from the wording of the spell. Whether necrotic or psychic damage require a physical tangibility is immaterial because you still have no defined mechanics to work with. We're told things "pass through" the illusion, so why wouldn't necrotic or psychic energy also pass through it? Shade's, Specters, Ghosts, etc. are intangible, yet they can take damage (both physical and otherwise) because their mechanics are defined. We know their ACs, and we know the kinds of attacks to which they are immune. The image projected is an illusion and therefore imaginary; we do not have enough information to make a ruling. We (the DMs) must make it up on the fly. This is okay; we're used to that, but adding a sentence like "The illusion has an AC of 25 and is immune to all non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing attacks and to psychic and thunder damage" would have solved this and made the spell much more straightforward for the player and the DM.
The OP asked if smacking the illusion would end the spell. I would be quite upset (as the player) if I burned a 7th-level spell slot only to find that smacking the illusion was enough to end the spell. One point of bludgeoning damage would meet the RAW here, but since the spell says the illusion is intangible, we can be confident that smacking the illusion could not cause damage. The trouble with the spell is that it doesn't define how the illusion could be damaged. It really doesn't even provide a hint about that. One could rule that the illusion has the same AC as the caster (and use the "illusory copy of yourself" language to justify that), but such a ruling would ignore the language about intangibility.
The spell's failure to define clearly the conditions that end it makes the spell itself intangible (def. 2).
This is a far more robust stance, I feel you have much more validity to these points, and am inclined to side with you on the matter regarding this elaborated and adjusted explanation of the matter.
However, there might be a flaw of sorts with your comparisons.
The comparison to Shades, Specters, and Ghosts I find interesting; Shades I can't find stats for, so can't say much on them, I'm probably just bad at the search bar, so if you care to have me look at it, I'll gladly check a link, Spectres I do not see any evidence of intangibility, Incorporeal Movement is not necesaarily the same, though I admit not necessarily not same either as Intangibility itself seems ill defined, and same for Ghost, woth the addition that Etherealness is also not confirmed on if it is or is jot the same as the Intangibility above, which does not rely on the Border Ethereal to function.
Also, though I still agree this spell ought to explain it, personally, were I to judgement call it, I'd say Weapon Attacks are right out unless it's got a magic item property that would reasonably get the job done, and for spells I'd look at the spell doing the attacking for if it would hit an Intangible, not the spell making the thing that's Intangible, of course only because this spell doesn't itself explain.
Sure, you likely meant the question rhetorically, not actually wanting my way I'd handle it, but, the question interested me enough I actively wanted to answer.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/12/what-happens-when-i-cast-project-image-enemy-targets-my-image-with-mm/
Most relevant Sage Advice I could find, doubt it is of much help.
Shadowfell Brand Tattoo leads me to believe Insubstantial/intangible is just half damage, meaning any and all damage sources could hit as usual, they'd just deal half damage, which I suppose would mean 1 damage blows would be zeroed?
I admit, I'm grasping at straws, but just the fact I found straws to grasp at surprises me a little bit.
Just to add another point about the oddness of some aspects of this spell, the 5th level Mislead appears to be better than Project Image in some ways because it doesn't mention any possibility of its illusion taking damage and ending the spell. It also doesn't mention any way that other creatures can determine that it is an illusion. Both spells are in need of errata or at least clarification, I think.
I like to think this spell'a range is main benefit over Mislead at least.
Something a lot seem to miss is that if you use the illusion school wizard ability to make illusions "real" that you can use it as though you were actually there touch anything, see anything, hear anything. I 100% would use this for an NPC wizard.
Imo its not meant to be useful to the players, its meant to be used by the DM to let his wizard BBEG gloat from safety.
Note that, since this is an illusion spell, it isn't stopped by effects that prevent Divination or halt scrying sensors, such as the Amulet of Proof of Detection and Location.