Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Jason--
I think the trouble is that you're viewing Invisibility as a light-bending effect rather than a mental illusion effect,
Except that it isn't a mental illusion effect. That's a phantasm, which is essentially what the 1st Ed. psionic invisibility devotion was - you project into the mind of the target the idea that you are not there.
In Pathfinder, invisibility IS an illusion, but it is NOT mind-affecting.
then handwaving around the metaphysics.
If you look at Invisibility Sphere, you'll see the subjects can see themselves and others within the sphere. One should infer from that that the subject of a regular Invisibility can see himself, his shirt is still red, and an invisible wizard can still read an invisible book by the light of an outside source because the light still falls on them, it just appears not to to those outside the invisibility field.
You can infer that, and I would agree, and probably even go so far as to reinforce that an invisible person can use a mirror, or a spyglass, or any other optical device on their person, and it works normally for them. However, it's not clearly spelled out in the rules whether what specifically works for invisibility sphere (you can see other creatures affected by the same spell) applies to other forms of invisibilty, since you could cite the equal and opposite precedent of mass invisibility, which stipulates that creatures affected CANNOT see each other.
Shadows and reflections are also not seen due to the mind processing them out the same way it processes out the invisible creature.
The mind isn't processing anything with invisibility; it's NOT mind-affecting. Your senses are processing what they perceive. Your eyes, which see visible things, do not see an invisible creature because it's not visible. Your ears still hear them, your nose smells them, your touch feels them, your tongue tastes them (if you lick them, ew). Your MIND has nothing to do with it.
Sure, in the real world your mind processes your sensory input. In PF that's not exactly true, since mindless creatures still possess senses. Even in real-world terms, however, your mind would be processing the input it receives; it would simply receive no visual input from an invisible creature (and would process fake input from a visible illusion as it would any other visible input). Regardless, the level of action is outside the person, at the level where things are perceived, not where they are processed.
Mindless creatures are no more able to see invisible creatures than genius creatures, barring special senses (which many have, like ooze blindsight or vermin tremorsense or scent). This is not BECAUSE they are mindless; it is because they also happen to have a special form of sensory perception that detects creatures that is not ordinary sight.
That way you can still maintain invisibility while walking through a hall of mirrors.
Of course you can maintain invisibility walking through a hall of mirrors. Mirrors are objects, not creatures. They do not sense creatures at all. They reflect what is visible. When a person is INvisible, they are by definition not visible; therefore, they don't show a reflection in a mirror.
I'm honestly confused about the point you're trying to make with bringing up mirrors and invisible creatures.
Of course, mirrors cause more problems. If you make it so that an invisible mirror can't reflect light, then you make it so that an illusory mirror can,
I don't do the latter at all. The latter in no way follows from the former.
and then if I'm in the desert and I make an illusion of a curved wall of mirrors, I can make an Archimedean death ray.
Except mirrors in Pathfinder don't create Archimedean death rays, unless they are constructed as traps, in which case they have attack bonuses and/or Reflex saves and inflict a certain amount of damage. Invisibility is relevant for targeting a trap if it must roll to hit. It is irrelevant if it does not. Invisibility does not protect against damage.
You can certainly create an illusion of a curved wall of mirrors, and you can make it look really bright, but you cannot create one bright enough to cause the dazzled condition or the blinded condition, much less actual physical damage. From the PRD:
"Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly. "
You could make your illusory curved mirrors create an illusory beam of very bright light, but it would cause no damage and would have no effect on creatures within it. Even creatures sensitive to bright light would take no penalties from being struck by this illusory Archimedean death ray, because the light isn't real.
Also, if Invisibility actually bends light rather than making people not notice the subject, all you need to do to turn off an actual real Archimedean death ray is to slap the source with an Invisibility or just slap yourself with Invisibility to walk through the ray unharmed.
Except that, in Pathfinder, invisibility doesn't confer immunity to any kind of light-based effect or attack, from searing light to sunburst to color spray to anything else.
Again, you are trying to imply inferential properties that the spell doesn't have, or perhaps to argue that my statement that invisibility makes you invisible (vs. your position that invisibility makes people THINK they can't see you) must necessarily imply magical metaphysics about how the spell must then work in other situations.
Also, FWIW, I have never stated that invisibility bends light AROUND you; that was your statement. I stated that the light goes THROUGH you. Therefore, the searing light spell or Archimedean death ray would go through them, not around them. As a game effect, it would cause damage to any creature in its path. An invisible creature is a creature, so therefore it would take damage. The fact that it is invisible has no bearing on whether it takes damage from effects that cause damage. You can rationalize WHY it takes that damage however you like.
Perhaps that's what you mean by "handwaving around the metaphysics." This is a game, with rules; those rules say what they do and do what they say. Applying an inferential metaphysics to WHY that happens leads us to a very different world, one in which heroes are instantly killed or (at best) crippled by a single blow by any ogre-sized creatures since "realistically' no human body could endure the kinetic energy transfer involved, where air elementals can't be harmed by weapons because, well, THEY'RE MADE OF AIR, and on down the list of entirely rational and reasonable inferences about how the world SHOULD work. However, none of those is very consonant with D&D and PF.
But, as always, there is no WRONGBADFUN in the game. If you have fun with your style of running figments, then by all means rock on!
2. If you can control the figment perfectly, and you can be inside of it, then you can use a figment as certain glamers with the minor restriction that you have to fit within the figment. Depending on the level of control, you could use Silent Image (level 1) to recreate Seeming (level 5) or Major Image (level 3) to recreate Veil (level 6).
Your forgetting a big difference between these two types of spells that prevent this from happening
Figments - Once you set down your illusion it can not leave the effect area (4 10ft cubes + 1 10ft cube/level). So if you used major image to mimic veil you could do it as long as you didn't leave that 15(10 ft, 11 lvl caster) cubes of space. The minute you left that effect area you could no longer apply the illusion to your party.
Glamors - target a creature or object and stick with them. So when the object or creature moves the illusion goes with them. Thus when you cast veil it continues to work as your party moves around.
Jason--
I think part of why I go this way is that I've been playing since 1st ed when the metaphysics was more firmly tied to the physics. For example, the old "Gaze Reflection" spell which summoned up a mirage-style heat shimmer in the air which would reflect back the gaze weapons of medusae and basilisks upon them, the same as a mirror would.
Consequently I think that spells like Searing Light, for example, could and should be reflected by mirrors, whether magically created or mundane, and similarly creatures that are transparent to the point of invisibility should be similarly unaffected if the metaphysics of Invisibility means that light actually passes through them. I'm not into the idea of "You can rationalize WHY it takes that damage however you like" and yet still insisting that it's a ray of divine sunlight. If I'm playing as a character, I want an explanation that my character with multiple ranks of Knowledge Arcana can wrap his head around, and I expect the GM to give me an explanation that doesn't have my character looking out the 4th wall to some abstraction in the rulebook. As GM? I have the metaphysics follow the physics, even if that leads to using Rule 0 to trump various bits of the RAW.
Of course, if you don't Rule 0 certain portions of the RAW, you end up with silliness like 1000 candles shedding no more light than one candle, making one wonder why candelabras and chandeliers even exist in the Pathfinder and D&D worlds.
@Lab_Rat
Sure there are some differences, and depending on the circumstances those differences become important. Many times the area constraint will not be a problem with some planning, but sometimes it is critical. I think it is important to remember that Silent Image is a level 1 spell compared to Seeming at level 6, Silent Image should not be in the same ballpark when doing something so similar to Seeming.
@Kevin
I don't play RPGs to be an alternate reality simulator, so maybe that is why we are having a disconnect.
slacks--
I like immersive roleplaying. I particularly like illusion spells because they allow free reign to the imagination.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Kevin -
Yeah, back in the olden days things were more direct. If I wanted to check for pit traps when I was starting out in 81, I'd tap a 10' pole (which EVERY adventurer had on him, SOMEWHERE) on the floor. If I tapped where the pit was, I'd detect the pit. If I didn't, I wouldn't.
3rd Ed and its successors, with a very inclusive rule-set, essentially folds that kind of descriptive activity into the skill system. Zorbon the Magnificent says he tapped the floor in front of him; Kevin rolls a Perception skill check against the DC of any pit that might be there.
There is plenty to recommend a game with magical metaphysics, and if you're happy then I'm happy. I don't think it reflects (pun intended) the core assumptions of Pathfinder RAW, but if that's de-emphasized then it don't matta and we're arguing two different things, which means we ain't got an argument at all. In that case, banners high and roll on! :)
Oh, I think the game still has plenty of magical metaphysics in the core assumptions of the Pathfinder RAW. Consider basilisks and medusae and their petrifying gaze. The text rather explicitly says that blind people are immune to the medusa's stony gaze so one assumes one has to be able to see her eyes directly. Getting this back to the related topic, if one were to walk into an area with a medusa chained to a wall, putting up a Silent Image of a wall in front of her so you couldn't make eye contact would seem to be a valid protection, at least for those who don't disbelieve and see through it--assuming the "translucent outline" left behind for those who disbelief isn't enough to blunt the medusa's stony gaze.
And I should point out that I'm not the only one to ask these sorts of questions. While the medusa's gaze works within 30', following the metaphysics one would think that could be extended by looking through a telescope or shortened by something that decreases visibility. Does the translucency of a disbelieved illusion partially occlude vision? The RAW says "translucent" and not "transparent," so visibility must be reduced. How much is a matter of GM judgement call, but I'd probably go with some variant of the rules for seeing underwater, since that specifically mentions the visibility when the water is clear or murky, which are just different words for transparent and translucent. Or maybe just apply the penalty from the oracle's "clouded vision" curse to those trying to see through disbelieved figments.
a wall of words
i think i will be DMing all illusions differently thank you for the inspiration
The usual answer is "incorrectly". WotC has a Rules of the Game series on illusions. Check it out for an indepth explanation.Rules of the Game: All About Illusions
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
+10 to these links. They do an excelent job of explaining the differences between the subtypes of illusion magic and how they are properly used by both the player and the GM.
The most important thing about illusions: understand that you and your DM need to be somewhere on the same page. Talk with him about how to use them and what he thinks they can or can't do.
+10 to these links. They do an excelent job of explaining the differences between the subtypes of illusion magic and how they are properly used by both the player and the GM.The usual answer is "incorrectly". WotC has a Rules of the Game series on illusions. Check it out for an indepth explanation.Rules of the Game: All About Illusions
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
An interesting discussion, but about the only thing it redlines from my previous points and questions is the idea of making the illusion of a pit in the floor. Following what Skip Williams says, you can't do that with Silent Image because Silent Image is a figment and figments can't make things seem like other things -- for that purpose you'd need a glamer. That said, I was pulling my interpretation from the 1st ed Phantasmal Force, Silent Image's predecessor, where creating an illusory pit with spikes is one of listed examples.
Looking at the spells in the Core Rules, it also appears that to make the classic illusory pit in the floor, one would need Mirage Arcana -- a 5th level spell -- but that also provides several senses beyond sight. This is useful if you want to create a pit filled with snarling stinky cold winter wolves, but a bit of a waste if you just want your classic silent unscented room-temperature spiked pit.
There's obviously room for some 1st or 2nd level spell -- Lesser Mirage Arcane or somesuch -- that would let you create illusory pits and pools in flat ground.
That said, there's a question of whether Silent Image might not be up to the task anyway. To look at Skip Williams' examples, you can't use Silent Image to make a trap door look like unbroken floor because that would require a glamer and all you have is a figment. You could, however, create the illusion of a rug over the trap door and still keep the spell in figment territory. But what does the rug look like? Could you have it appear to be woven as a trompe-l'oeil tapestry of a spiked pit, maybe with a few dramatic skeletons scattered at the bottom? Seems reasonable to me, and while this wouldn't fool viewers from a close distance, those further away could be fooled.
Beyond that, Williams' articles, while good, don't even touch on the questions I've raised. He gives an example of creating a wall of illusory flame, specifically "For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything."
Does it provide illumination? It's a simple question. You're in a room with no source of illumination save a wall of figment flames. Are figment flames a source of illumination or not?
Williams' just before that says "A figment is unreal and cannot produce real effects; it can't deal damage, support weight, provide nutrition, or act as a barrier (except that a visible figment can block line of sight). You can use a figment to fool opponents, but you can't harm them or affect them directly."
That is a significant exception--"can block line of sight." All sorts of mechanics depend on line of sight, including concealment bonuses, gaze attacks and so forth. Is concealment a "real effect" or not? Or is it more a case of "No real effects save those dependent on vision"? I'd go with the later.
And since it has been definitively ruled that figments such as Silent Image can block line of sight, it's a simple question of logic whether they can also deflect line of sight. Basically the question of, since both a real wall and a figmentary wall can both block a gaze attack, if a real mirror can deflect a gaze attack -- redirecting line of sight, for example, to a medusa sitting in an alcove -- can a figmentary mirror do the same?
Then, with the question of the illusory mirrors in the desert and the Archimedean death ray, do we need a specific ruling in the RAW to say that if your character stares at the sun, the GM will give him the Dazzled or Blinded condition or is this just common sense? And if your character looks at a real mirror reflecting the sun, shouldn't the same circumstance apply? Then what of a figmentary mirror? Since a figment can block a gaze attack as mentioned by Williams earlier, all that's needed is a common sense ruling on whether it can deflect one too.
I'd say it can.
Similarly, it should be pointed out that light is treated as a gaze attack in the RAW. Refer to the Bestiary III, p. 257, and the Stymphalidies "Glare" ability which can be used in an area of "normal or brighter light" with the bird ruffling its metallic feather so as to blind foes. The power notes "A creature can defend against this effect in the same way as it would a gaze attack. This is a sight-based effect."
So, light is a sight-based effect (which should be obvious) and is defended against as you would against a gaze attack. And as Skip Williams points out, figments can block line of sight. Ergo, if I'm facing stymphalidies and they try to blind me with Glare, I can use Silent Image to conjure the three little maids from school from the Mikado and their parasols and have them open those parasols to block the glare of the stymphalidies' feathers which, it should be pointed out, is being reflected from the sun. So it is hardly a stretch for me to use the same figment to shade me from the sun, solving the question of whether a figment casts a shadow. And if there are any penalties for walking in the sun without some form of sun shade, the figmentary parasols should work just as well as real ones.
And if the stymphalidies were attacking at night but in the presence of the figmentary wall of flame? Then it's a relevant question whether the figmentary wall of flame provides normal or better light.
It should also be pointed out that in the RAW illusions seem to be able to create light and in significant amounts too. Or at least if you look at the Blinding Ray power of Illusion specialists in the core rules. That gives a "shimmering ray" that can blind or dazzle foes. While usually the creation of light and darkness fall under Evocation, it's been shown than figments can block line of sight and thus create shadow. Obviously illusions can create light of some form if they make shimmering rays that cause dazzling and blindness.
Ergo, illusions can create, if not true light, at least an illusion that works the same way. And since Silent Image is all visual, it's easily within the realm of possibility to create an illusion of a light source. And given that that Light is an evocation cantrip, it's not even a power issue to ascribe that power as a byproduct to higher level illusions.
|
An interesting discussion, but about the only thing it redlines from my previous points and questions is the idea of making the illusion of a pit in the floor. Following what Skip Williams says, you can't do that with Silent Image because Silent Image is a figment and figments can't make things seem like other things -- for that purpose you'd need a glamer. That said, I was pulling my interpretation from the 1st ed Phantasmal Force, Silent Image's predecessor, where creating an illusory pit with spikes is one of listed examples.
Looking at the spells in the Core Rules, it also appears that to make the classic illusory pit in the floor, one would need Mirage Arcana -- a 5th level spell -- but that also provides several senses beyond sight. This is useful if you want to create a pit filled with snarling stinky cold winter wolves, but a bit of a waste if you just want your classic silent unscented room-temperature spiked pit.
There's obviously room for some 1st or 2nd level spell -- Lesser Mirage Arcane or somesuch -- that would let you create illusory pits and pools in flat ground.
That said, there's a question of whether Silent Image might not be up to the task anyway. To look at Skip Williams' examples, you can't use Silent Image to make a trap door look like unbroken floor because that would require a glamer and all you have is a figment. You could, however, create the illusion of a rug over the trap door and still keep the spell in figment territory. But what does the rug look like? Could you have it appear to be woven as a trompe-l'oeil tapestry of a spiked pit, maybe with a few dramatic skeletons scattered at the bottom? Seems reasonable to me, and while this wouldn't fool viewers from a close distance, those further away could be fooled.
Beyond that, Williams' articles, while good, don't even touch on the questions I've raised. He gives an example of creating a wall of illusory flame, specifically "For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything."
Does it provide illumination? It's a simple question. You're in a room with no source of illumination save a wall of figment flames. Are figment flames a source of illumination or not?
Williams' just before that says "A figment is unreal and cannot produce real effects; it can't deal damage, support weight, provide nutrition, or act as a barrier (except that a visible figment can block line of sight). You can use a figment to fool opponents, but you can't harm them or affect them directly."
That is a significant exception--"can block line of sight." All sorts of mechanics depend on line of sight, including concealment bonuses, gaze attacks and so forth. Is concealment a "real effect" or not? Or is it more a case of "No real effects save those dependent on vision"? I'd go with the later.
And since it has been definitively ruled that figments such as Silent Image can block line of sight, it's a simple question of logic whether they can also deflect line of sight. Basically the question of, since both a real wall and a figmentary wall can both block a gaze attack, if a real mirror can deflect a gaze attack -- redirecting line of sight, for example, to a medusa sitting in an alcove -- can a figmentary mirror do the same?
Then, with the question of the illusory mirrors in the desert and the Archimedean death ray, do we need a specific ruling in the RAW to say that if your character stares at the sun, the GM will give him the Dazzled or Blinded condition or is this just common sense? And if your character looks at a real mirror reflecting the sun, shouldn't the same circumstance apply? Then what of a figmentary mirror? Since a figment can block a gaze attack as mentioned by Williams earlier, all that's needed is a common sense ruling on whether it can deflect one too.
I'd say it can.
Similarly, it should be pointed out that light is treated as a gaze attack in the RAW. Refer to the Bestiary III, p. 257, and the Stymphalidies "Glare" ability which can be used in an area of "normal or brighter light" with the bird ruffling its metallic feather so as to blind foes. The power notes "A creature can defend against this effect in the same way as it would a gaze attack. This is a sight-based effect."
So, light is a sight-based effect (which should be obvious) and is defended against as you would against a gaze attack. And as Skip Williams points out, figments can block line of sight. Ergo, if I'm facing stymphalidies and they try to blind me with Glare, I can use Silent Image to conjure the three little maids from school from the Mikado and their parasols and have them open those parasols to block the glare of the stymphalidies' feathers which, it should be pointed out, is being reflected from the sun. So it is hardly a stretch for me to use the same figment to shade me from the sun, solving the question of whether a figment casts a shadow. And if there are any penalties for walking in the sun without some form of sun shade, the figmentary parasols should work just as well as real ones.
And if the stymphalidies were attacking at night but in the presence of the figmentary wall of flame? Then it's a relevant question whether the figmentary wall of flame provides normal or better light.
It should also be pointed out that in the RAW illusions seem to be able to create light and in significant amounts too. Or at least if you look at the Blinding Ray power of Illusion specialists in the core rules. That gives a "shimmering ray" that can blind or dazzle foes. While usually the creation of light and darkness fall under Evocation, it's been shown than figments can block line of sight and thus create shadow. Obviously illusions can create light of some form if they make shimmering rays that cause dazzling and blindness.
Ergo, illusions can create, if not true light, at least an illusion that works the same way. And since Silent Image is all visual, it's easily within the realm of possibility to create an illusion of a light source. And given that that Light is an evocation cantrip, it's not even a power issue to ascribe that power as a byproduct to higher level illusions.
Head bursting.......going to splode!!!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say enemies are charging the city gates...place the Silent Image in front of the gate to make it look like the air shimmers, as if a mirage, and have a pit trap suddenly appear. Make the way it appears similar to how an illusion spell fades, rather than is created, to make them think that they've "seen through" another spell. They'll stand in front of the pit trap, thinking what to do for just long enough for the archers on the wall to turn them into pincushions...
thing is...they'd need to interact with it, like try and jump across...which they won't do, assuming you make the pit deep enough...and full of spikes...
Let's say enemies are charging the city gates...place the Silent Image in front of the gate to make it look like the air shimmers, as if a mirage, and have a pit trap suddenly appear. Make the way it appears similar to how an illusion spell fades, rather than is created, to make them think that they've "seen through" another spell. They'll stand in front of the pit trap, thinking what to do for just long enough for the archers on the wall to turn them into pincushions...
thing is...they'd need to interact with it, like try and jump across...which they won't do, assuming you make the pit deep enough...and full of spikes...
Good idea, except that Silent Image doesn't do pits anymore, due to the figment vs. glamer business. Of course, waiting till 5th level when you get Mirage Arcana is a bit unreasonable for your average unscented silent temperature-neutral illusory spiked pit trap. I'd suggest house-ruling an "Improved Silent Image" as a 2nd level spell which would be identical to Silent Image except for being 2nd level and including glamer along with figment so you can make those illusory pit traps and swimming pools you desire.
If making your own spells is not an option... would this be possible:
use "invisibility" to turn a section of the floor invisible, this also makes it invisible to you... then use silent image to put spikes at the bottom of that "pit" you created?
If that's not supposed to work, you basically turned silent image into a weaker version of glitterdust:
I'd create a figment of waist-high water in a room with the invisible person, sure everybody instantly knows there is no water, but the figment is still "visible", since you ruled that figments could not "go through" invisible objects or persons = instant invisibility locator. hehe
Here's some examples:
When my party realized we were being tracked by a team of ninjas, we set up a camp and hid, waiting to counter-ambush them when they arrived. I used Silent Image to conjure an illusion of myself wondering around the camp by herself, collecting firewood. This provoked the ninjas into blowing their invisibility to attack where they were exposed for us to counterattack.
I also tricked a small squad of gnolls beyond my level that an avatar of Lamashtu rose from the Abyss to bless them with unholy water that ended up putting them to sleep, allowing us to coup de grace them.
I did an encounter where a small pirate ship used a couple of 1st-level wizards to hide their ship with fog and conjure an illusion of a large sea serpent, complete with the ship's catapult flinging flaming bundles to simulate the serpent spewing fireballs. They used this ruse to scare merchant ships into abandoning their cargo and fleeing, leaving the pirates an easy profit.