Don't you have to concentrate to keep the Silent Image going, and isn't that mutually exclusive with fighting?
A character (called "Rogue") is a high level rogue. Rogue has taken the rogue talent "Minor Magic" and "Major Magic." The choice for major magic is silent image.
If Rogue is engaged in melee combat, and creates a silent image of a fighter with a sword drawn in the square opposite, and the target believes the illusion, is Rogue now flanking the target?
In other words, if the target believes in an illusion, can that illusion be used to create a flanking bonus if the positioning is correct?
I would say yes, but you would not be able to capitalize on it. You have to concentrate on a silent image taking a standard action every round. In addition, if the enemy believes it, they are bound to attack it, and interaction means an auto disbelieve on a silent image. If however you are seeking flanking with a 1st level spell, and your dm is allowing spells from the spell compendium, there is a spell in there that provides flanking in there, i however do not remember the name of it off hand, and I dont have the book in front of me. I will check when i get home today.
A character (called "Rogue") is a high level rogue. Rogue has taken the rogue talent "Minor Magic" and "Major Magic." The choice for major magic is silent image.
If Rogue is engaged in melee combat, and creates a silent image of a fighter with a sword drawn in the square opposite, and the target believes the illusion, is Rogue now flanking the target?
In other words, if the target believes in an illusion, can that illusion be used to create a flanking bonus if the positioning is correct?
The concentration issue aside (which indeed renders this example moot), the question is still a valid and much debated one. Let's say the illusion was created by the wizard in the party instead.
By the letter of the rules, the answer is no. The illusion cannot make any attacks, therefore it does not threaten any squares. Since it does not threaten the target's square, it cannot grant flanking.
Taking it a little deeper philosopically gets a little tricker of course. The target believes the image is real, why would he not grant it some of his attention and thus open himself up to flanking? I think in this situation, the illusion would quickly break down, especially a low-level spell like Silent Image (visual ONLY). Even if the caster maintaining the illusion has the image dance around in combat, he can't actually make it attack for fear of succeeding and sticking it's insubstantial sword in the target and revealing the illusion. Actual, real combat is impossible. So the illusion may as well just stand there and make rude gestures, which may be annoying and distracting, but cannot grant flanking.
Now, if I were a DM, the spell were of sufficient level (at least Minor Image), and the caster was descriptive and imaginative enough, I *might* allow the use of the Aid Another action. But still no flanking.
Disclaimer: This is a gut instinct call at the moment, unsupported by looking up any rules beyond what constitutes a threatened square.
Disclaimer: This is a gut instinct call at the moment, unsupported by looking up any rules beyond what constitutes a threatened square.
Oh the image definately doesnt threaten by RaW. The reason I think it should grant flanking is a spirit of the rules argument. The reason a threatened square provides flanking is because the defenders's attention is split. If the defender thinks they are flanked they are flanked.
RaW ofcourse it cannot flank, and its why i like some of the splat book spells that allow an illusionist to provide flanking. It seems to me a talented illusionist should be able to distract someone long enough for the party rogue to put a knife in their kidneys just from a rational standpoint. I can make you think your mother is drowning across the river, but I cant make you look over your shoulder enough to provide a disadvantage in combat? Seems lacking to me.
Disclaimer: This is a gut instinct call at the moment, unsupported by looking up any rules beyond what constitutes a threatened square.
Oh the image definately doesnt threaten by RaW. The reason I think it should grant flanking is a spirit of the rules argument. The reason a threatened square provides flanking is because the defenders's attention is split. If the defender thinks they are flanked they are flanked.
RaW ofcourse it cannot flank, and its why i like some of the splat book spells that allow an illusionist to provide flanking. It seems to me a talented illusionist should be able to distract someone long enough for the party rogue to put a knife in their kidneys just from a rational standpoint. I can make you think your mother is drowning across the river, but I cant make you look over your shoulder enough to provide a disadvantage in combat? Seems lacking to me.
If the spell specifically says it can flank, fantastic. But I've got no problem with the x Image spells not being able to, because there's nothing there. Like I said, the image cannot make a credible threat because the moment it actually succeeds in "attacking" the flankee, it reveals itself as an illusion.
Think about it this way (a little abstracted, but go with it). If someone is pointing a gun at me and threatening to shoot me, I'll take him seriously, because I don't know if it's loaded or not. Now if you make the situation two guys, one of whom is shooting at me and the other guy is just pointing his gun menacingly... well I'm not going to pay much attention to the one who isn't actually shooting, right?
Okay, look at this situation: Joe the wizard is being stabbed in the gut by BBEG. Joe is not going to run away because he knows one more hit will kill him and running will provoke an Attack of Opportunity, and ditto casting a spell, but he has better initiative than the BBEG so has a chance to drink a potion of healing and pray in the non-cleric sense.
Next round, his ally Bob the Rogue bounces into the square next to him and suddenly the BBEG is flanked, because he's putting some of his attention on Joe, the dying wizard, who is just going to be drinking a potion this round, but could conceivably bean him with the empty bottle. That would in all likelihood bounce off his absurd armor class, but there's a miniscule chance Joe might get a crit and confirm and the bottle might do a couple points of broken glass damage versus his obscene pool of fighter tank BBEG hitpoints. Ergo, Bob gets a flanking bonus.
Ditto a Silent Image, an Unseen Servant modeling spare clothing, or just a Dancing Light impersonating a possible will-o'-wisp will all give flanking bonuses, since there's the possibility in the defender's mind that that one of these things that cannot actually attack in reality might. The Dancing Light might be an actual will-o'-wisp, the Unseen Servant could be some variety of undead or construct--you know, that tatterdemalion thing that models old clothes just before it strangles you--and the Silent Image might actually be whatever it's an illusion of.
Similarly, invisible allies can't really give flanking if no one knows they're there.
I would say yes, but you would not be able to capitalize on it. You have to concentrate on a silent image taking a standard action every round. In addition, if the enemy believes it, they are bound to attack it, and interaction means an auto disbelieve on a silent image. If however you are seeking flanking with a 1st level spell, and your dm is allowing spells from the spell compendium, there is a spell in there that provides flanking in there, i however do not remember the name of it off hand, and I dont have the book in front of me. I will check when i get home today.
I think you're looking for persistant dagger.. I don't think I would let a rogue take that without a level of wizard :) but it is limited times per day so there is some balance
Okay, look at this situation: Joe the wizard is being stabbed in the gut by BBEG. Joe is not going to run away because he knows one more hit will kill him and running will provoke an Attack of Opportunity, and ditto casting a spell, but he has better initiative than the BBEG so has a chance to drink a potion of healing and pray in the non-cleric sense.
Next round, his ally Bob the Rogue bounces into the square next to him and suddenly the BBEG is flanked, because he's putting some of his attention on Joe, the dying wizard, who is just going to be drinking a potion this round, but could conceivably bean him with the empty bottle. That would in all likelihood bounce off his absurd armor class, but there's a miniscule chance Joe might get a crit and confirm and the bottle might do a couple points of broken glass damage versus his obscene pool of fighter tank BBEG hitpoints. Ergo, Bob gets a flanking bonus.
Unless Joe has a melee weapon in hand, IUS or a held touch attack spell, he doesn't threaten the square and thus doesn't provide flanking. Even if he's got a (quarter)staff or lowly dagger and an 8 STR, that makes him a threat (natural 20's happen after all). At this point you get into the arguement from another thread as to what happens if you deliberately ignore one flanker to deny a flanking bonus to a greater threat (ie the Rogue).
Similarly, invisible allies can't really give flanking if no one knows they're there.
Agreed 100%.
Again, the issue with using an illusion as a flanker is that the illusion CANNOT actually attack without revealing its true nature.
The problem of the illusion "hitting" the opponent shouldn't actually be an issue, assuming the wizard is smart enough to cast the spell.
If I was running the illusion, it would be swinging it's weapon, but always missing the target. If my character has any idea how to do that, it's probably also acting like it's using power attack and combat expertise, which make the misses more believable. It the target attacks the illusion, it dodges out of the way. So there's never any contact between the target and the illusion. This will probably get suspicious fairly quickly, even if the target doesn't attack the illusion, especially since there's also no noise as it moves. After a round or two, the target should probably get another save at a bonus.
While the target believes the illusion, I'd certainly grant the rogue a +2 circumstance bonus on his attacks. I could also see allowing flanking, although the RAW certainly don't grant it. Summon Monster I allows flanking without a Will save, and it might even do damage, so allowing flanking from a first level spell certainly isn't overpowered.
While the target believes the illusion, I'd certainly grant the rogue a +2 circumstance bonus on his attacks. I could also see allowing flanking, although the RAW certainly don't grant it. Summon Monster I allows flanking without a Will save, and it might even do damage, so allowing flanking from a first level spell certainly isn't overpowered.
In of itself, it's not. Keep in mind however that Summon x requires 1 round to cast, only lasts 1 round/level, and has very limited utility. Silent image is a standard action, can last (in theory) indefinitely, and has vast utility beyond just creating a temporary combatant.
I played a Gnome Master Illusionist in the last game I was in. Believe me, I would have LOVED for my illusions to have been that good. I think that they're plenty powerful enough already, particularly in the hands of an imaginative and skilled caster.
Besides, if you want to give your Rogue easy sneak attacks using Silent Illusion there's a much simpler way. Create an illusion of a dense fog around the target's head. Concentrate to maintain it's position on his head, and as long as he doesn't leave the set of 10' cubes you've specified as the area (and fails his save obviously), he's blind. Blind means no dex bonus to AC, which means sneak attacks galore. Absolutely cheesy, but can anyone tell me why it's not allowed?
Since this is the rules questions board the answer is no, illusions cannot flank. Also, as has been pointed out silent image requires concentration and the rogue could not take advantage of flanking while concentrating.
That said, as a GM I like to encourage creative solutions. I would probably allow silent image to flank situationally. It's unlikely I would allow it for every day use though.
In other words, if the target believes in an illusion, can that illusion be used to create a flanking bonus if the positioning is correct?
Sadly, no.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
...
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
So, in order to get a flank, both members of the "flanking team" must be enemy characters or creatures -- regardless of perceptions or what the enemy thinks. A figment is not a creature; it's a spell effect.
Besides, if you want to give your Rogue easy sneak attacks using Silent Illusion there's a much simpler way. Create an illusion of a dense fog around the target's head. Concentrate to maintain it's position on his head, and as long as he doesn't leave the set of 10' cubes you've specified as the area (and fails his save obviously), he's blind. Blind means no dex bonus to AC, which means sneak attacks galore. Absolutely cheesy, but can anyone tell me why it's not allowed?
A figment cannot make something look like something else.
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.
That would be a glamer. You can't make figment clothing for someone -- you can't make a figment hat for someone. Likewise, you can't make a dense fog that someone could walk in. Let's say you make a dense fog figment. Someone tries to walk in. Everyone immediately disbelieves the spell. You can't trap someone in an illusory house -- that's making someone look like an illusory house and the spell would simply fail. Likewise, making a "fog mask" around someone's head is making their head look like a "fog mask" -- the spell would simply fail.
We will assume that Joe has a wizard's staff in one hand that could conceivably be used as a quarterstaff. However, I think it can also be agreed that a wizard a couple hit points away from death would be far more likely to drink a healing potion or take some other defensive action that feebly flail at a tank with an unenchanted stick.
As for Silent Image and similar spells, the point of saying that they cannot attack does not mean that they can't miss convincingly. When I create a Silent Image, it does not mean that I can only create illusions of pacifists or innocuous creatures. I should be able to create an illusion of a bull, but rather than play Ferdinand and sit there and smell illusory flowers, I can make the bull snort, scuff the ground, charge, then miss at the last minute. Similarly I can make the bull bleed realistic if illusory blood when someone stabs it, and if the bull dances around next to the rogue, then the rogue should get flanking, the same as if I'd used Summon Monster to get a celestial bull.
If an invisible ally doesn't grant flanking because the target doesn't know its there, then an illusory ally should grant flanking because the target doesn't know it isn't there.
Similarly, let's say Joe doesn't have IUS (unlikely for a wizard), or a staff or dagger, or any prepared Touch Attack spells. In fact, all poor Joe has left is the wizard's old standby, Prestidigitation, which cannot do anything harmful either. But Joe says, "Hah, this will cost me, but you've pushed me too far! Say 'hello' to a little trick I learned in the restricted stacks of the library, Morgaleb's Hand of Ooky Blackness!" Then he Prestidigitates his fingernails to become dragonlady long and gothy black and oily black smoke to curl up from them. It's impressive and theatrical, but utterly harmless.
Of course, does the BBEG know that? It could be Ghoul Touch with Spell Thematics. It could be some broken cheese from someone's homebrewed Book of Really Seriously Vile Darkness. The BBEG doesn't have any Spellcraft to tell, or any Knowledge Arcana to realize that no one's ever heard of Morgaleb's Hand of Ooky Blackness. And even if he makes a Sense Motive check to realize Joe is bluffing, is he bluffing that a harmless spell is a deadly one or is he bluffing that a low level touch spell is high one?
Unless the BBEG has actually seen through the illusions and other ruses to realize they are not threats, he should remain flanked.
Kevin, you know how illusionists roll. :)
One of my players has been using a single silent image trick almost exclusively for the first three sessions: walls and boxes. Essentially he makes it look like he's casting stone shape... and until near the end of last session, not even the other PCs had disbelieved yet. For all anyone could tell, he was a powerful mage just slumming it with a bunch of newbies. It's been so thematically awesome that I haven't started deliberately invalidating it yet.
If Rogue is engaged in melee combat, and creates a silent image of a fighter with a sword drawn in the square opposite, and the target believes the illusion, is Rogue now flanking the target?No, the image doesn't threaten.
So you can be threatened by a real tiger but you can't be threatened by a paper tiger, even if you think the paper tiger is real?
This makes absolutely no logical sense.
Honestly, as a GM, I'm going to rule that the illusion looks like what it looks like, and the target gets a Will save for disbelief if he interacts with it. If he fails his Will save, then he honestly believes it's something that's consistently missing him and he consistently misses as well--an absurdly common occurrence in many fights, so nothing that prompts an extra Will save.
Since all of the Conjuration spells provide creatures that grant Flanking regardless of whether you make a Will save or not, there's hardly a power balance issue for Silent Image to do the same with a Will save involved.
If you want the "Silent Image Cantrip," use the old "2 D'llusion" from the 1st ed Unearthed Arcana. It makes an image that is two-dimensional, viewable from the front but invisible from the back. You can use it for a powerpoint presentation, a slideshow, or if you're really tricky, use it to make a fake magic mirror or change what's seen outside a window. But it's less powerful and a lot of fun.
But as for Silent Image, and the question of how big you can make your illusion, it says in the Pathfinder text is that this is 4 10' cubes + 1 10' cube per level.
As for what it can look like, I would say your best bet for illusions are anything you've personally seen. Those just require a Will save if interacted with. Anything you have not seen but have heard about is a matter of your Bluff versus everyone else's Sense Motive check if they've seen the thing you're faking.
For example, you've heard of crocodiles, but your only experience with crocodiles is watching a Punch and Judy show. If your marks have never seen crocodiles either, then you're good. However, if you try the Punch and Judy crocodile illusion on a druid who's not only seen crocodiles but turned into them, it's your Bluff vs. his Sense Motive. If you succeed, he believes its a crocodile, but obviously some species he's never encountered before. If he succeeds, he gets a will save as if he were interacting with it. And if he succeeds that, he realizes its an illusion, as opposed to some mad wizard's experiment or fiendish crocodile or something similarly unnatural and wrong.
As for creating an illusion of an army, or at least a warband, you'd probably have some difficulty choreographing all of them especially if multiple people were attacking. Silent Image is supposed to create only one image, and while conceivably a chorus line of dancing girls or a shield wall of warriors could be done, they wouldn't be able to be broken up. And once one of the people interacting with the illusion made their Will save, they'd likely call out to everyone else and they'd then get to make new saves, and so on.
Using Silent Image to obscure vision is basically using it as a poor man's Fog Cloud, one that requires concentration to maintain, gets a Will save immediately (obscuring someone's vision is definitely interacting with them), and may moreover be disbelieved.
But honestly, illusionists are supposed to do these things. Making a phantom rise up out of the ground menacingly and wave its spooky arms while the fighter tries to hack them off? Classic illusion, especially because it requires less explanation for why it's insubstantial and silent.
Having the illusion dodge is also pretty simple, even if you use something as cheap as having the image disappear from portion of your illusory zone and reappear in another: Someone is using a Blink effect or Dimension Door.
You might allow another Will save whenever the illusion starts doing something markedly different, but honestly, how many saves do people need? Conjuration spells don't even give one for many of them.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So you can be threatened by a real tiger but you can't be threatened by a paper tiger, even if you think the paper tiger is real?
This makes absolutely no logical sense.
We differ by night and day. To me it makes no sense to think something that someone only believes exists is continually poking and jabbing at him.
In other words, to provide flanking you must threaten. To threaten, you must be poking and putting on guard.
A figment of your imagination (while frightening) can't poke.
|
Since someone that has yet to interact with an illusion has no reason to believe it isn't what they see it is.
If someone makes A spectre or a silent ninja, or what have you then the opponent will be flanked due to the illusory enemy. If he attacks the enemy he "interacts" with it, gaining a Will Save to disbelieve the illusion. On a successful save he is no longer "flanked" by the illusion. On a failed save he still believes the illusion is real (probably rationalising to himself that his attack must have missed). The more he interacts with the illusion though, the more saves he gets (odds are with bonuses accruing as each successive interaction would make him more and more suspicious).
This is a fairly valid interpretation of the spell in my opinion. Could the rogue do it by himself with Minor Magic Talent? No, because he can't fight and concentrate at the same time. Could he have his gnome bard/illusionist buddy hook him up? Hells to the yeah.
Kevin, you know how illusionists roll. :)
One of my players has been using a single silent image trick almost exclusively for the first three sessions: walls and boxes. Essentially he makes it look like he's casting stone shape... and until near the end of last session, not even the other PCs had disbelieved yet. For all anyone could tell, he was a powerful mage just slumming it with a bunch of newbies. It's been so thematically awesome that I haven't started deliberately invalidating it yet.
Walls yes, boxes no. Creating walls to grant cover is perfectly valid. Any time cover is granted by the illusion, that counts as interaction and a disbelief save. But "boxing" an enemy (completely entrapping them inside a figment) isn't going to work because it makes a creature look like something else. If you really want this to work as a DM, just offer a +4 bonus on the saving throw to be boxed in.
But "boxing" an enemy (completely entrapping them inside a figment) isn't going to work because it makes a creature look like something else.
What do you mean it makes the creature look like something else? where are you getting this from? does my car make me look like something else? (its a VW Polo if you have to know :)
I really dont see the difference between walls and boxes. As long as the caster knows that there will be light inside the box if there is light outside. And also that if its a 6 sided box around his upper body and head, the BBEG will see that his body can move through it and get a save immediately.
A figment of your imagination (while frightening) can't poke.
Tell that to phantasmal killer.
A figment of your imagination (while frightening) can't poke.Tell that to phantasmal killer.
It's a phantasm, not a figment q:
But "boxing" an enemy (completely entrapping them inside a figment) isn't going to work because it makes a creature look like something else.What do you mean it makes the creature look like something else? where are you getting this from? does my car make me look like something else? (its a VW Polo if you have to know :)
I really dont see the difference between walls and boxes. As long as the caster knows that there will be light inside the box if there is light outside. And also that if its a 6 sided box around his upper body and head, the BBEG will see that his body can move through it and get a save immediately.
The text under Illusion (Figment) in the Magic section says:
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.
If you're in a stone box, you've made someone look like something else; in this case, a stone box. The spell should fail because figments can't do that. A barred cage is more possible. . .
If you're in a figment of a VW Polo, in most cases the figment would cause immediate disbelief for everyone watching it. For instance, the figment cannot support weight (also in the text), so you couldn't sit in the car. Anyone observing a person standing through a figment would immediately disbelieve. You could potentially float/fly through the car with the windows down (since hitting the windows would also immediately cause disbelief. . . unless it's a major image and someone is concentrating to make the window react to being hit and breaking).
A wall just blocks line of sight -- it doesn't actually make something seem to be something else.
A figment of your imagination (while frightening) can't poke.Tell that to phantasmal killer.
It's not a capital-F Figment, it's a capital-P Phantasm. ;)
I knew this topic was going to start off a good discussion.
One of my previous DM's used to make illusions far too powerful. For instance, an illusory (non-shadow) fireball. Major image includes visual, auditory and thermal effects. So our party was near the end of a fight with some big Ogres and weakened. Just as we drop the last one, BOOM, big explosion around all of us. We fail our Will saves, so we believe it's real. Looks like a fireball, sounds like a fireball, and it was damn hot. His ruling was that our minds were 'tricked' into believing our bodies were damaged, and dropped us unconcious since the "damage" put us below zero. We obviously survived, but the badguy got away. Completely against both the written rules and intent of them as far as I'm concerned, but a potentially valid interpretation if you let illusions have too much.
On the other hand, under the same DM, I managed to defeat a dragon (at least Adult, probably older) with a single Silent Image spell followed by a finishing blow by the Barbarian in the party. We had scouted the lair, a cave in the side of a seaside cliff, ahead of time while the Dragon was out terrorizing a ship out in the water. Big ruts in the floor indicated that the dragon liked to come in and land at full speed, apparently a bit of a thrillseeker. So I put up a simple Silent Image, making the entrance appear just to the side of the actual entrance. Dragon returned from his raid, and smacked himself into the wall of the cliff at full speed. No save, since he didn't interact with the illusion until he pretty much went into it. :) The DM was reasonably generous with the amount of damage it did, I think mostly because he was impressed with the idea.
The other thing that isn't well covered is how you interact with your own illusions. Do you automatically disbelieve them? Can you see through them (since they become just an outline once you realize the illusion)? My illusionist told the party that his verbal components for when he'd be casting an illusion would always start with 'foo' so that they'd be aware that he wasn't really summoning a horde of ghosts (yes, I used that trick once or twice, to try and panic the mooks).
So, long story short (too late), I think Illusions are plenty powerful as is. I don't see that there's any reason to give them any more power beyond what they've already got. They can block line of sight (though not line of effect), and can appear to be just about anything the caster imagines in the process. Good enough for me. Doing more than that is why you have other spells in your book.
If you're in a stone box, you've made someone look like something else; in this case, a stone box. The spell should fail because figments can't do that. A barred cage is more possible. . .
Uhhh... by that logic, illusions can't do anything. If I put an illusion across a hallway I just made that hallway look like a wall. It looks like something else now, so obviously I couldn't do that. I can't put a fake door on a wall, or even 1/2 an inch out from the wall. I can't make an illusory snake in the grass because I just blocked the view of the grass, thus making the grass appear to be a snake.
It's not a capital-F Figment, it's a capital-P Phantasm. ;)A figment of your imagination (while frightening) can't poke.Tell that to phantasmal killer.
James's "figment of your imagination" wasn't a capital-F Figment, either. I was pointing out that purely imaginary creations can do just as much harm as purely real ones in D&D.
The text under Illusion (Figment) in the Magic section says:Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.If you're in a stone box, you've made someone look like something else; in this case, a stone box. The spell should fail because figments can't do that. A barred cage is more possible. . .
If you're in a figment of a VW Polo, in most cases the figment would cause immediate disbelief for everyone watching it. For instance, the figment cannot support weight (also in the text), so you couldn't sit in the car. Anyone observing a person standing through a figment would immediately disbelieve. You could potentially float/fly through the car with the windows down (since hitting the windows would also immediately cause disbelief. . . unless it's a major image and someone is concentrating to make the window react to being hit and breaking).
A wall just blocks line of sight -- it doesn't actually make something seem to be something else.
The car was not meant to be used as a silent image but anyway. Try a hut then?
I know what a figment is, and I know what a glamer spell is. Lets say you create a wooden box around a BBEG. You are not making him look like something else. I dont know why you keep saying that?
The reason they put that line in there was so that people couldnt go: I use silent image to disguise my fighter as the king and he walks through the gate...
Back to the box around the BBEG: Why would the party get a saving throw on a box that just appears? They wont, its intended to be a box and it looks exactly like one.
Finally: The target is the only person that we care about really, and he certainly wont get a saving throw against a box that appears around him. (again i fail to see where we are changing his appearance?). He does get a throw if he prods at it (standard action) or if he knows you use illusions etc.
Nowhere here are we attempting to make something seem like something else. Silent Image "Overlays" onto the real world. So we cant make a hole appear, but we can close a hole up. Boxes and Walls are fair game.
All about illusions, goes into a little depth and gives examples
If you're in a stone box, you've made someone look like something else; in this case, a stone box. The spell should fail because figments can't do that. A barred cage is more possible. . .
Uhhh... by that logic, illusions can't do anything. If I put an illusion across a hallway I just made that hallway look like a wall. It looks like something else now, so obviously I couldn't do that. I can't put a fake door on a wall, or even 1/2 an inch out from the wall. I can't make an illusory snake in the grass because I just blocked the view of the grass, thus making the grass appear to be a snake.
I'm also having trouble seeing why a box won't work. To anyone inside the box, the "trapped" creature still looks the same.
I think the intention is to avoid using a figment to make someone invisible or like a different person the same size or smaller. If you want to make the orc barbarian look like a halfling, figments aren't going to work. If you want to make the elf wizard look like an orc barbarian, that might work, if you can get the elf's body to be entirely inside the shape of the orc body. The reverse almost certainly won't work, since the orc's arms and legs will be thicker than the elves arms and legs.
|
As the GM, any time my npcs perceive (in-context of the npcs view) that there are multiple threats they are fending off from........ I would allow the flanking per flanking rules. It doesn't matter to me that the threat is only perceived and not real.
Violence or the thread of violence, philosophically, provoke similar actions on the part of those who belive the threats and act accordingly.
And, I conversely allow the same benefit for my NPCs against the players, provided the PCs cannot disbelieve or see through any illusionary or ineffective threats.
Uhhh... by that logic, illusions can't do anything. If I put an illusion across a hallway I just made that hallway look like a wall. It looks like something else now, so obviously I couldn't do that. I can't put a fake door on a wall, or even 1/2 an inch out from the wall. I can't make an illusory snake in the grass because I just blocked the view of the grass, thus making the grass appear to be a snake.
Making something look like something else is different than juxtaposing two separate entities. A snake in the grass is not making the grass look like a snake. The figment door on a wall isn't really making the wall look different -- it's just an image of something different placed in front of the wall. But this is tricky, because an illusion of a fake door can't cause a depression in the wall (the illusion can't alter how something else looks).
Just ask the question:
Does this figment make something seem to be something else?
And you can figure out if the illusion will work or not.
Uhhh... by that logic, illusions can't do anything. If I put an illusion across a hallway I just made that hallway look like a wall. It looks like something else now, so obviously I couldn't do that. I can't put a fake door on a wall, or even 1/2 an inch out from the wall. I can't make an illusory snake in the grass because I just blocked the view of the grass, thus making the grass appear to be a snake.Making something look like something else is different than juxtaposing two separate entities. A snake in the grass is not making the grass look like a snake. The figment door on a wall isn't really making the wall look different -- it's just an image of something different placed in front of the wall. But this is tricky, because an illusion of a fake door can't cause a depression in the wall (the illusion can't alter how something else looks).
Just ask the question:
Does this figment make something seem to be something else?And you can figure out if the illusion will work or not.
So tell me, how does putting a wall in front of someone make that person look like a wall? Two walls? Four?
I know what a figment is, and I know what a glamer spell is. Lets say you create a wooden box around a BBEG. You are not making him look like something else. I dont know why you keep saying that?
If I completely immerse you in a stone box and no one can tell that you are in that box, how do you not look like a box? Are you a box or not? If you have to ask that question, then the illusion can't work.
Remember, this is a fantasy RPG. Turning someone into a box is possible.
If you make a box with holes that shows that you are clearly inside of a box -- and not making you into an actual box -- then that could work.
So tell me, how does putting a wall in front of someone make that person look like a wall? Two walls? Four?
Are you trying to make the person look like a wall?
If I completely immerse you in a stone box and no one can tell that you are in that box, how do you not look like a box? Are you a box or not? If you have to ask that question, then the illusion can't work.
*YOU* dont look like a box. People see a box appear where a BBEG or PC was. Even if they thought it was you and asked that question it would still work. Your basing all this on a rule that you are misinterpreting.
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.
This means you cannot modify existing objects/buildings/people. You can however add illusion to the world that covers or adds to the existing objects/people/buildings.
Remember, this is a fantasy RPG. Turning someone into a box is possible.
Getting warmer...
If you make a box with holes that shows that you are clearly inside of a box -- and not making you into an actual box -- then that could work.
NONONO!COLD!
If i try to make a disguise for a person with silent image it would work. But it would look ridiculous and would be out of sync with him and be immediately recognized as an illusion.
A stationairy box suspended in the air is just that. The guy can 5-foot step out of it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding the original post, I am reminded that in D&D 3,5, there were a host of options that produced the "flanked" condition.
In Players Handbook II the alternative class feature for the Ranger (pg 55) was "Distracting Attack", replacing the Ranger's animal companion. "If you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, either ranged or melee, you count as a flanker for the next attack by any ally."
There's a spell in the Spell Compendium that gives an opponent the feeling that there's always somebody right behind him, making him flanked.
And here's a bit of telling flavor text, also from the Players Handbook II. The Hexblade's alternative class feature, replacing its familiar, is a shadowy "dark companion" that imposes a -2 penalty to the saves and AC of any adjacent enemies. The dark companion "can't create flanking situations, nor does it provoke attacks of opportunity from movement, because enemies automatically recognize it as an illusion."
Which suggests that illusions which are not immediately recognizable might indeed create flanking situations, or provoke AoOs.
On the box subject, I paid close attention to his descriptions and secretly applied modifiers to the saving throw for the creature(s) inside. If he created a box or wall which should have shut out light (which I won't allow Silent Image to do) there was a +4 save bonus. There was another when he put up a second box on a BBEG after the first was disbelieved (though he was clever enough to use a completely different effect, so it was only +2).
The idea that building a box around someone is "making them look like a box" and therefore invalid is munchkin territory, which is odd because usually the munchkins are on the other side of the table.
Part of the problem is that you made this rule up. Every other class of spells in D&D has fairly strict rules on how they work but illusions are taped together with GM fiat and houserules and guesses. Plus, even this made-up houserule has loopholes and goofiness; you've just told illusionists to never ever make any creature anyone has actually heard of and instead make zerbsofles (which are seven-headed carnivorous fire-breathing yaks that I just now made up) because nobody can say "Hey, that's not a very convincing-looking zerbsofle!" but most people are going to want to do something about the seven-headed carnivorous fire-breathing yak that is apparently menacing them.
Hmm, reminds me of the giant four-headed chowder-breathing lamprey that was a running joke until the transformation specialist actually turned into one.
That said, the rule obviously needs adjusting. I'm going to muddle on this a bit then post it as a separate house rules thread.