They're probably asking about the spells gained via Creed Magic, an 8th level feat
I would allow a battle harbinger to cast the spells gained via Creed Magic from scrolls, wands, and staves (and count them as added to their divine spell list since they prepare them "as divine spells"), but not prepare them in any slots other than the special creed slots gained via that feat
This isn't perfect parity with the magus's Studious Spells class feature, since the magus adds those spells to their spellbook (not to mention the battle harbinger has to spend a class feat on it) but it'll have to do by my reading
Because everyone posted faster than I did the first time I didn't see Finoan's response before posting. Expanding on the idea that the OMTG save might be before the affliction progresses past the initial save; I would have the OMTG save be a repeat of the initial save in that case
the slow spell's duration is "varies", meaning it doesn't execute and leave behind the condition. It persists as long as it says in the save entries, and so the extra save would be against its effect, not only the condition. Contrast this with the blindness spell, which is an instantaneous spell that leaves behind an ongoing condition. An OMTG save against the blindness condition from a blindness spell would work how you describe, but not against a slow spell's effect
The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts. Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry. A spell might last until the start or end of a turn, for some number of rounds, for minutes, or even longer. If a spell's duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the spellcaster's turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.
Some spells have effects that remain even after the spell's magic is gone. Any ongoing effect that isn't part of the spell's duration entry isn't magical. For instance, a spell that creates a brief, loud sound might deafen someone for a time, even permanently. This deafness couldn't be counteracted because it is not itself magical (though it might be cured by other magic, such as sound body).
Darksol is right that Take Cover behind a tower shield is taking cover - as in it provides the increased bonus to AC and reflex saves against damaging effects, but considering several "as usual, you can't Hide with this cover because your position is still obvious" entries exist I doubt you'll find a GM willing to allow you to Hide behind it. See Portable Weapon Mount (Tripod, Shielded) and Shield Wall for similar items used for cover
I agree with Darksol that casting a spell reveals your position because of the spellcasting manifestations unless it's printed as a subtle spell since those typically don't have giveaway effects either. Because even if a spell is cast with Conceal Spell, "an observer might still see a ray streak out from you" as that feat says and so give your position away. Making a strike or maneuver would do so too, but SP is right that in all of these situations simply moving is enough to return to purely Undetected status
Because all of the reasons for a simply invisible (not disappeared) creature to need to Sneak are because of imprecise senses like hearing that can passively detect a moving creature's location. This is true even for non-invisible creatures. If the party is ambushed by non-invisible goblins behind a wall, and those goblins don't sneak while they're behind the wall, the party will hear them and know their locations unless the GM is neglecting the rules. Being "invisible to all senses" means a disappeared creature doesn't need to Sneak to remain in or return to Undetected status
@Witch
Blindsense and Blindsight were what all non-sight senses were lumped into in the playtest, such as life sense, echolocation, tremorsense, etc. I actually feel like the playtest disappearance wording was almost perfect, but Blindsense and Blindsight were large chunks of text you'd have to look up and understand so I get why they dropped those and tried to "simplify" it all into the spell's description. Not exactly succeeded, but tried
That's how it would work with anything else, right? Like if you only failed against a slow spell the first time but crit failed on this bonus save you would end up worse off. Why would afflictions be an exception?
Witch, just a little feedback on this even though it's off-topic
>As other creatures cannot see or hear you, you cannot use actions with the auditory or visual traits, cannot use sonic attacks, and cannot cast spells unless they have the subtle trait.
Being unhearable isn't the same as being silenced. I believe that's why they removed the line from the 2e playtest version saying the target is "completely silent." Yes, I agree that visual and auditory/linguistic actions are ineffective. I don't necessarily agree that sonic attacks are off the table, and I don't agree that spellcasting is impossible w/o the subtle trait. Spellcasting only requires that you not be silenced, not that you can be heard by those around you. If that were the case, what would happen if someone cast a hypothetical hear the unheard spell? Would the "imperceptible" creature then be capable of spellcasting just because someone could now hear them?
To clarify my "not necessarily" on sonic stuff. For instance, a target would not be able to hear *your* voice for biting words since it is both auditory and sonic, while concordant choir is only sonic and not dependent upon the target hearing *you* - only on them being capable of hearing and not in a silenced space
Darksol is just doing that thing he does when he's cornered and arguing progressively ridiculous stances to exhaust his opposition and "win" by lastpost. After looking up the 2e playtest version of disappearance I'm satisfied that my reading is absolutely correct. He has no power over me
You cast see the unseen. Congrats you can now see invisible creatures and objects. However, it is ultimately moot as the caster of disappearance isn't invisible.
the phrase "count[s] as" appears dozens of times in the books and nobody has had any problem applying its meaning until this interaction. Why is that?
I believe it's because a faction of players just can't let go of their 1e "laws", one of which being the rules for the magic item that shares its name, Dust of Disappearance. Except this spell lacks crucial wording present in that old item, specifically ANY mention of being immune to magical detection. If they intended that to be so, they could and would have said so
2e playtest precedent:
In fact, the 2e playtest version of disappearance, also a level 8 spell, was even simpler...
2e playtest Disappearance wrote:
The target becomes invisible and is completely silent. This defeats all forms of blindsense and blindsight.
I quoted the rules for blindsense and blindsight but then this piece of s!## forum ate my post so I'm not in the mood to retype all of it. Suffice to say they were a word salad that was replaced with the various alternate senses like life sense, echolocation, tremorsense, etc. If anyone's curious I could post them later but not right now
My point is that the final 2e wording of disappearance appears to be an attempt to change the references to blindsense and blindsight to the final detection rules. There is not and never was any immunity to magical detection. The 2e playtest 2nd level spell see invisibility was perfectly capable of thwarting it
Darksol, your reply to Finoan is a red herring. Your claim that see the unseen is "no different than these effects here" is false. An effect that grants those senses WOULD normally auto-detect an invisible target if "all senses" hadn't already been covered in disappearance's spell description. But disappearance doesn't say anything AT ALL about stopping other means of detecting or seeing the invisible. In fact it says the opposite
Which is why I don't understand how you can argue with a straight face that disappearance being foiled by a 2nd rank spell specialized for the purpose of seeing the invisible is somehow too good to be true. Disappearance itself says that a BASIC Seek action can detect the target with no magic at all. But no, Ravingdork, that's not the ONLY thing that helps
Disappearance wrote:
You shroud a creature from others' senses. The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have. It's still possible for a creature to find the target by Seeking, looking for disturbed dust, hearing gaps in the sound spectrum, or finding some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature.
>or finding some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature.
What better way to "discover the presence" of a creature that "count[s] as invisible" than a spell that sees the invisible? I'm not oversimplifying it. It really is just that simple
If disappearance wasn't supposed to interact with or be vulnerable to effects that affect invisible, they wouldn't have mentioned invisible. "Count as invisible" means it's susceptible to effects that detect or affect invisible. It's as simple as that
Could be the ability to physically enter their body being a H: 9th thing? As for that question and the rest of your questions, they might be answered in the possession trait
Faving your own posts? Well, I guess I shouldn't kinkshame
Anyway, I can't comment on your analysis of Trade Life For Death without its full text so I'll leave #1 alone except to say that if the second target must be an ally you can't heal yourself with it
2nd. Protect Companion can only target "your eidolon, or a creature with the minion trait under your control" so your familiar would qualify but not your party members. Again, if Trade Life For Death can only heal allies you'd have to deal with the damage taken to yourself some other way
C. Not many experienced GMs are going to entertain any "bag of rats" solutions, so don't get attached to that idea. Go ahead and Google that if you're unfamiliar with the phrase
IV. No
S. Missing?
b. Unrelated
Overall I'd say it's a Rube Goldberg machine of a healing solution when there are so many other "unlimited out of combat healing" options available in the game. I would probably roll my eyes but allow anything that's w/i the rules except the bag of rats if you pulled it at my table
Suppose you are a Raging Athlete and you need to run 15' to get to the deep stream, swim 20' across, then move 5' to engage an enemy...
Is this 40' of movement (of mixed types) or is this a three action event due to switching movement mode?
This sort of question would best be posed to your specific GM, but Splitting and Combining Movement on GMC p.29 offers ideas for such situations
Splitting and Combining Movement wrote:
The different types of actions representing movement are split up to clarify how the rules work with a creature's actions. However, you can end up in odd situations, such as when a creature wants to jump vertically to get something and needs to move just a bit to get in range, then Leap, then continue moving. This can end up feeling like they're losing a lot of their movement to make this happen. At your discretion, you can allow the PCs to essentially combine these into one fluid movement as a 2-action activity: moving into range for a Leap, then Leaping, then using the rest of their Speed.
This typically works only for chaining types of movement together. Doing something like Interacting to open a door or making a Strike usually arrests movement long enough that doing so in the middle of movement isn't practical.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike.
I hate to say it but technically it works. The only thing that twigs my exploit senses is that the weapon returns to your side for repeated uses, as many attacks per turn that you spend sustains on, doing the (sanctified) damage type of your favorite bomb without needing to spend an action to draw another bomb, for as many spell slots you dedicate to it. So you'd never have to buy or craft more than one of any consumable weapon as long as you have that spell ready. And if you're an alchemist mc, or have an alchemist in the party, you can get that one of each per day for free. I don't like that but there is nothing preventing it... yet
Of course, you're not actually throwing a real bomb so as the spell description says you need to hit or critical hit to do ANY damage - you won't get splash damage at all - nor any secondary effects like persistent damage, nor off guard from lightning bombs, etc.
The old wording was functional and concise. I don't understand why they changed it, nor why they removed the spellbook. Is there some D&D connection that would have prompted it?
I think it's perfectly thematically appropriate if you read the full text of the archetype's intro, its dedication, and the feat you're questioning and not only the mechanics
"The world is full of shadows, but each living creature possesses a form of inner light to ward against that ever-present darkness… all except shadowcasters. By trading away that piece of their spirit, shadowcasters have removed a limiter, allowing them to gain magical power rooted in the darkness; however, this trade also exposes them to otherworldly whispers from the realms of shadow."
"You've sacrificed a piece of your spirit, allowing the powers of shadow into your being and changing the nature of your magic. You can no longer cast spells that have the light trait; if an ability, such as a class feature or ancestry feat, would automatically grant you a light spell, such as the Domain Initiate feat granting you the dazzling flash spell, you don't gain that spell."
"You pool the power of shadow within your eyes, gaining the ability to gather darkness into a turbulent orb of crushing emptiness within your line of sight."
So yeah, you've chosen to be more susceptible to shadow and darkness than the average bear in order to gain more of those powers
But then again, you're not exactly without options. Assuming you're leaning into the shadow and darkness theme with your cleric, you probably have access to the darkness domain. That means you could have access to the Darkened Sight focus spell long before Unending Emptiness enters the picture
1. I would roll separate dice because it says 1d6 twice instead of using language such as "and you deal the same amount in spirit damage to the triggering enemy"
2. I would not apply the Relentless Reaction damage to the enemies damaged by the Exalted Reaction due to this wording in the Relentless Reaction: "An enemy damaged by the initial reaction’s damage"
The damage dealt by the Exalted Reaction is calculated from the "initial reaction's damage" but it is not itself that damage
This also tracks when compared to all the other champion reactions. None of the others have a Relentless Reaction that combines with its Exalted Reaction
The Grapple action or Grab monster ability impose the grabbed or restrained conditions. Elven Verve doesn't apply to grabbed or restrained so therefore doesn't apply to the Grapple action.
What would happen if you were to (crit) succeed on the grapple of a creature that is immune to being immobilized?
Unless I'm missing a rule somewhere such a creature would simply be unaffected by the Immobilized condition, meaning it could move unhindered on its turn. If there isn't already guidance on this detail, whether that meant they broke being Grabbed or Restrained via moving out of reach or they dragged the Grappler with them because they technically didn't Escape would be up to the GM. But it would not mean it is immune to Grabbed or Restrained, nor would it have any bonus to its DC vs Grapple unless specifically stated
What I can find so far without my copy is this line in Calling: "You can have only one mythic Calling."
So maybe the trait is to ensure there's no argument about whether a calling is a calling or not. Or maybe they're preparing in case they print callings that aren't called "X Calling" in a future book
but I'ma circle back to my first question, no definition for the trait in the book?
The Grapple action or Grab monster ability impose the grabbed or restrained conditions. Elven Verve doesn't apply to grabbed or restrained so therefore doesn't apply to the Grapple action.
What would happen if you were to (crit) succeed on the grapple of a creature that is immune to being immobilized?
PC2 p.138 Nudge the Scales par.2, "In addition, you can mediate during your daily preparations to place yourself on one side of the scales."
The word isn't misspelled per se, so I suspect it wouldn't trip most spellchecking software, but from the context I would expect that word to be "meditate", not "mediate"
I don't have my copy yet so I'm just going by what was in the playtest.
Since their prepared spells are the only ones they have any agency in picking I would categorize them as a prepared caster for purposes of using staves (or for anything else that mattered for) and that is how I would run it at any table I GM barring PFS guidance to the contrary
If I was a player at their table I would not argue with another GM who allowed an animist player to choose how their staff worked during daily prep
I would not expect any GM to allow an animist to get it both ways at once
Just spitballing here away from my book. Reduce a natural (as in non magical) wind hazard like a gusty bridge, inhibit oxygen supply to a fire, maybe some natural electrical stuff if there are any?
> So are you saying he shouldn't have taken the damage at the end of the attackers turn from the persistent bleed, but at the end of HIS next turn instead?
>I mean there are other items that can illuminate, like a torch, that don't have the Light trait
Yeah, my first thought was that the glow rod was the anomaly but who knows what all the different writers think. I'm multitasking right now so I don't have time to dispute your "95%" number but maybe someone else will, or my curiosity will overcome my laziness later. :3 As for candles, lanterns, and torches, they all say they shed light in their descriptions just as the sparkler does. IMO anything that lends its name to a trait is autological. Fire has the fire trait, and light has the light trait
>the spell is an open ended spell, etc.
Yes, you could create the illusion of a torch but it's not a real torch so it can't produce real light. You could try to create the illusion of illumination by detailing the illusion of the immediate surroundings of the illusionary torch, but a visual figment being restricted to 5x5x5' limits your ability to do so in a believable way and might be ruled to exceed the "simple" part of its first line. This is a cantrip after all, and it already does a lot without ALSO making the light cantrip superfluous in all cases except counteract. Make no mistake, THAT is what is being argued here. "How many cantrips can I get to multitask with my limited selection?"
>Going by the 'but the spell doesn't say it can illuminate', etc.
I feel like bringing other specific illusion spells into this discussion of a cantrip is a segue too far, especially considering how disparate they are in their execution. But aside from the mental/non-mental split there is one thing nearly all illusions have in common, at least according to the trait. They trick the senses. Even if a creature can logic out an illusion's not real they can't see through it or ignore its effects without succeeding their disbelief check. Even if an ally tells them it's not real or even shoves them through it. Some illusions, like mirror image or invisibility, don't even try to hide that they're an illusion and don't have disbelief text. They just work™
Higher level illusion spells, like illusory scene, have larger areas. A 30' burst is quite a lot of room to create the illusion of a lit space. You could put a torch in the center and it would not stand out, and as I pointed out above even if someone noticed they or another real creature or object didn't project a shadow they would still need to succeed a disbelief check to see through the illusion (not that illusory scene is hard to logic out to begin with)
>the "and" in the light trait's first sentence isn't the important word. The "can" is.
I wanted to elaborate on this line because I was struggling to find the exact words for the concepts I was trying to express
The "and" isn't a programming operator, and the "can" isn't a statement of fact, but the indefinite "can" synonymous with "might" or "may" as in "and can might/may counteract magical darkness."
Light trait: "Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area..."
Figment lacks the light trait, so it does not illuminate. It is an illusion: "Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli."
I would disagree with this conclusion as it's not the full quote. "Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area and can counteract magical darkness." There is no reason a spell couldn't "overcome non-magical darkness" but be unable to "counteract magical darkness" hence not qualifying for the Light trait. For instance, the Sparkler manages to overcome non-magical darkness without the Light trait but a Glow Rod does. There is no reason Figment can't illuminate an area as long as it can't counteract magic darkness.
I'm not sure if sparkler's lack of the light trait was an oversight, a relic of items pre-remaster, or if its author believes the fire trait does double duty here, but regardless; the sparkler accomplishes illumination because its effect text says it produces light and that's good enough for me. The glow rod certainly can't counteract magical darkness because if, as you said, we continue quoting the light trait, "You must usually target darkness magic with your light magic directly to counteract the darkness, but some light spells automatically attempt to counteract darkness." Glow rod isn't a spell and doesn't say anything of the sort, so the "and" in the light trait's first sentence isn't the important word. The "can" is. "Light effects overcome non-magical darkness" is the always present effect of the light trait and its defining feature, but the "can" in "and can counteract magical darkness" means a light effect might not be able to do the rest, as is the case with the glow rod. You know I'm willing to rule differently than a strictly pedantic RAW reading if there's cognitive dissonance between elements of a rule. figment doesn't say it produces light like the sparkler does in its description, so I don't see a reason to rule it does so without the light trait
That's not to say the illusion of light or an illuminated scene (that fits w/i 5x5x5') couldn't be created with figment, and the thought of how that would look once someone approached w/i 15' and it became "clearly crude and undetailed" is something I've had fun visualizing
You messed up your quote tags but since you quoted me I'll go ahead and reply
>Aka, it is less about actually affecting the mind, it more about how good of a hologram it was, how good the sounds was, and if you are wise or smart enough to realize it's just a hologram, aka, an illusion. This makes far more sense.
figment is not a mental illusion. It's not "affecting the mind." I did say I didn't believe there needed to be a range limit aside from the normal rules for senses, so I would rule someone very far away, especially using a telescope or other means to scry the location, would NOT be able to hear or see it. And once again, it is NOT A HOLOGRAM. It's not creating a sound or light construct, it is tricking the senses. It doesn't have to "make sense" and in fact the point is that it doesn't - that's why a creature can logically know it isn't real but still can't ignore it without succeeding a disbelief check. It is MAGIC
And finally, this isn't D&D. Each game system and fantasy setting handles illusions (and all magic) differently. I don't recall any mention of the shadow plane being involved in Pathfinder, but considering how many different illusion spells there are - and thusly different authors' takes on how illusions work - I wouldn't be surprised if one existed that did draw on what I believe we're now calling the Netherworld, or if all illusion spells behave differently on that plane specifically. But it's definitely not a Universal rule for illusions, and not applicable to figment in normal play
But to circle back to the original question, "can the figment cantrip give off light?" It lacks the light trait, so no. It does not give off light. That is not a subjective ruling based on my understanding of illusions or the lore of spells in Golarion. It is how effect traits work in this game system. Either reconcile that with your own headcanon for illusions or houserule it differently if you're the GM of your home game
I agree partially with both of you. Yes RD, the dedication does lack a page number for Quick Alchemy benefits. I agree that's an oversight that fortunately wasn't repeated in Morning Side Dishes
But even when I included the page number for Quick Alchemy benefits in my reply, you ignored it and quoted the Alchemist class feature in yours. Would a page number in the dedication's entry have helped? And Alchemical Archetype rules aren't new, they've just been altered and codified more like the spellcasting benefits as Errenor said
Light trait: "Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area..."
Figment lacks the light trait, so it does not illuminate. It is an illusion: "Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli."
false sensory stimuli. As in a figment of imagination
Attempting to argue that it creates light because of the physics of sound is a dead end because it does not create sound. It creates the illusion of sound, just as it creates the illusion of a visible object without creating light
So if it only creates the illusion of sound, then it's AOE is not actually 5' because it clearly notes that beyond 15' it becomes indecipherable... but you still hear it, and from the wording I would assume beyond 15' as normal sounds.
So either the AOE is greater than 5' of illusionary sound or the illusion is only 5' but it creates physical effects much like magical fire will light things on fire and create heat.
Thanks for the reply.
The spell's actual text for reference
Figment, quoted from AoN wrote:
Figment
Cantrip 1
Cantrip Concentrate Illusion Manipulate Subtle
Source Player Core pg. 331 2.0
PFS Note If a visual figment occupies the entirety of a 5x5 cube, it can provide cover or concealment, but not both, for a medium or smaller creature. It does not block line of sight.
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast [two-actions]
Range 30 feet
Duration sustained
You create a simple illusory sound or vision. A sound adds the auditory trait to the spell and the sound can't include intelligible words or elaborate music. A vision adds the visual trait, can be no larger than a 5-foot cube, and is clearly crude and undetailed if viewed from within 15 feet. When you Cast or Sustain the Spell, you can attempt to Create a Diversion with the illusion, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your Deception check. If the attempt fails against a creature, that creature disbelieves the figment.
So there's actually nothing about the maximum range it can be heard or seen. The range entry for the spell is how far from the caster it can be cast, and the only mention of 15' is in reference to a visual figment. And in addition, that mention is not how FAR it can be seen, but how CLOSE a viewer needs to get for the visual illusion to begin breaking down. Create a Diversion doesn't offer any help in deciding this either. Personally I don't believe there needs to be a limit to how far a figment can be heard or seen aside from the normal rules for senses
>it creates physical effects much like magical fire will light things on fire and create heat
Again, this is an ILLUSION. It's not a sound machine or a hologram. It doesn't CREATE any sound or light or objects. It causes observers to sense things that do not exist
Dr. Aspects wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but illusion spells specifically target the mind, yes? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it make more sense that it’s just triggering parts of your mind to make it seem like physical stimuli? In which case, it wouldn’t be creating light or sound so much as tricking your brain into thinking there’s light or sound.
With the 5 feet being louder and 15 feet being faint a trick to make it even more believable as physical stimuli. It’s magic pretending to be not magic. It’s trying to pretend to follow the laws of physics by manipulating your brain into accepting that it is.
Mental illusions might work like that depending on their text, but non-mental ones trick the sensory apparatus of the observer. That's why they can affect constructs, undead, and other mindless or otherwise immune-to-mental creatures
Wandering Chef Dedication, LO:TXCG p.100, "You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits..."
I've had to point out Quick Alchemy benefits include the Alchemical Crafting feat a few times already. I'm not sure what it is about this particular rule that throws people.
Maybe they remember you get it from Adv. Alchemy Benefits and so forget you also can get it from QAB?
@RD, if after reading AAB & QAB again you still need a hand putting them together with the dedication and Morning Side Dishes just say what's missing and I'll fill in the blanks as I see them if someone else doesn't beat me to it
Did anyone else notice that the archetype acts as though you have Alchemical Crafting, but doesn't actually grant you that feat? There's nothing anywhere in the text that actually indicates that you get free formulas from the dedication at all in fact.
The dedication also doesn't seem to allow you to use Versatile Vials for anything other than bombs, which seems kind of odd for a chef.
Morning Side Dishes, as written, also appears to give you all of the benefits of Advanced Alchemy, and then ALSO allow you to create 5 alchemical food consumables during your daily preparations on top of those normal benefits.
Poorly written all around.
>Did anyone else notice that the archetype acts as though you have Alchemical Crafting, but doesn't actually grant you that feat? There's nothing anywhere in the text that actually indicates that you get free formulas from the dedication at all in fact.
Wandering Chef Dedication, LO:TXCG p.100, "You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits..."
Quick Alchemy Benefits, PC2 p.174, "You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat..."
Alchemical Crafting feat, PC1 p.252, "When you select this feat, you immediately add the formulas for four common 1st-level alchemical items to your formula book (page 288)."
Wandering Chef Dedication, LO:TXCG p.100 (again), "Any items you choose with Alchemical Crafting must be alchemical food, but they can be 1st level or 2nd level instead of only 1st level."
I don't know what you're on about versatile vials or Morning Side Dishes. Having read the PC2 p.174 entries on Advanced & Quick Alchemy Benefits, their interactions with the text of Wandering Chef Dedication and Morning Side Dishes appear clear to me
Light trait: "Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area..."
Figment lacks the light trait, so it does not illuminate. It is an illusion: "Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli."
false sensory stimuli. As in a figment of imagination
Attempting to argue that it creates light because of the physics of sound is a dead end because it does not create sound. It creates the illusion of sound, just as it creates the illusion of a visible object without creating light
I agree that the text is technically ambiguous as to whether the selected height is per creature or per casting of the impulse.
I do think the use of the singular the whole way through does somewhat imply / lean toward you running through that procedure for each creature independent of the prior creature(s).
That "one by one" way it's written would enable different lift heights. But that's just my take.
