|
There was a debate in another thread that was started when I said you could use Silent Image to create the illusion of a pit. I felt it was a debate/discussion worth having but that we had hijacked the poor OPs thread so I started this one.
One of the posters said that was imposable because Silent Image can’t make one thing (the floor) look like something (the floor with a pit). Someone also said that it was imposable because to make an image of a pit I would have to make part of the floor invisible. I believe a third argument was that creating a pit duplicates the effect of Hallucinatory Terrain a level 4 spell in that it changes the terrain. One guy just seemed to feel that if a GM let Silent Image depict perspective they were bad GMs.
My thinking is that the Silent Image is laid on top of the floor; it doesn’t make the floor look like something else it obscures the real floor with the illusory floor. It may be splitting hairs but it is pretty much the same as creating a false wall in front of a real wall.
I wouldn’t need to make the real floor invisible as the illusion works like one of those hyper realistic perspective paintings. It is 2D but looks 3D. (and you know… “magic!”)
There is a pretty stark difference between Silent Image and Hallucinatory Terrain. Area of effect, casting time, duration, and a major difference in that HT lets you cast other spells while it is running.
I think it is a mark of a strong GM that he can handle the party using divination, teleportation and illusion without limiting the spells effects.
If I can use Silent Image to create a fake Dr Who style vortex to oblivion (or just a pit) floating in space we are fine. But if I put that same illusion on the floor or wall it becomes illegal? That seems wrong to me. I tend to think about these things and ask “Is this game breaking.” And considering a caster making an illusory pit in the floor with Silent Image can’t cast any other spells while doing so (normally) I don’t think it is.
Well, my point of view is pretty clear. Thoughts?
**See below for the [Figment] rule, a link to the type of hyper real image I was talking about, and a link to the thread that started it all. Feel free to post on the original topic of the thread.**
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
http://www.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/crevasse.png
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgiv?New-to-illusions-Best-uses-for-silent-ima ge
I think that using the illusion spells to create 2D images that APPEAR 3D, such as the 3D Chalk artists or Wile E Coyote, to bypass the clear restriction of Figments of not being able to make something look like something else goes against the intent of the spell and the intended power of the spell.
I respect the creative uses for illusion spells, because damn, I am crap with being creative with them. I just think something like that is abusing the system and I would not allow it.
I do think the "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." could be rephrased to something more precise, as someone pointed out, even putting an illusion of a dog in a field is making the air (which IS something) look like something else >_>
But thats getting pretty nit-picky.
I get that some may see the forced perspective thing as a bit of a stretch (pun intended) but, for all intents and purposes, if one can create an image of a painting (which I think most would agree is within the confines of the spell) then you should be able to create a similar effect on the floor.
Additionally, if you can create moving images (such as a walking dog) then you should be able to manipulate the image of the painting on the wall to adjust to the perspective of a particular viewer.
So I find forced perspective well within the confines of the spell, and to me, it is also "nit-picky" to prevent that kind of creative use of a spell.
However, If one really wants to be that picky about it, then there is another option.... The purpose of the pit illusion would be to prevent the enemy from moving across that space. Well, instead of an empty pit, one could create an illusion of a pit of Lava instead. Provided the entire surface of the illusion is above floor level when created, that should quell anyone's concern about the legality of the creation.
Here's the kicker... Lets say instead of putting lava on the floor, put it on a wall instead. Now, put a frame around it and wallah! A moving lava painting!
So really, what is the purpose of an illusion spell if you can't create illusions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is from an article from 3.5 on the DnD Website about Illusions, this is an excerpt from part 4
Using Figments Well
As noted in Part One, spellcasters often make the mistake of trying to use figment spells (such as silent image, minor image, and major image) to make something look like something else. Figment spells don't do that -- you need a glamer spell for the task. You can craft a figment to fit in with its surroundings or to conceal something. Consider these situations:
A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.
You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.
You wish to draw some bad guys into an ambush by creating a false oasis in the desert.
You cannot use a figment to make empty sand look like an oasis. You still can create an illusory oasis with one or more figment effects. You can create an illusory pool of water to fill a depression in the sand, and you can sprinkle the area with illusory palm trees and undergrowth.
If the area is very flat, you won't be able to create a believable figment pool of water, but you might get away with a spring where water bubbles to the surface and soaks back into the sand.
A party caught in the open wants to hide from an airborne foe.
A figment can't make the party look like they aren't there. It can, however, make them a place to hide. You could use a figment spell to make an illusory house, a grove of trees (with leafy branches for concealment), or even a hill or big rock. The party will be concealed so long as the characters stay underneath the illusion.
A Few Additional Notes on Figments
The foregoing examples also serve to illustrate concepts from Parts Two and Three:
Characters hiding behind or under the illusions here need to make saving throws to successfully disbelieve them (assuming they want to do so). The caster, however, knows the illusions aren't real. If the caster points out the illusions, the characters get a +4 bonus on their saves; in this case, the DM might want to waive the saving throws and assume disbelief to save time.
In any case, a successful saving throw against a figment spell reveals the figment to be unreal, but still visible (if it's a visible figment) as a see-through outline. This is helpful to characters using a figment for concealment because they can see right through the figment and also know exactly where the figment is so that they can remain concealed.
In many cases, creatures who are unaware that illusion magic is at work probably will not gain saving throws to disbelieve the figments in these examples. A creature in the vicinity of one of these figments probably would pass right by without taking any action to study or interact with the figment and gain a saving throw. This, however, applies only to creatures passing casually though the area. A creature that is deliberately searching for the party that the figments in these examples conceal probably will poke around long enough to gain a saving throw through study or interaction (or might simply stumble through the figment). Likewise, a creature that is very familiar with the locale where the figments have been placed probably will note the sudden appearance of a new feature and gain an immediate saving throw (because doors, oases, and hills don't just spring up in a matter of minutes or hours usually).
Hopefully this clears up the confusion
The big thing to take away from this is that a figment REQUIRES open space to work and you can't use 2D images and forced perspective to make a figment do the work of a glammer spell.
To use the Lava pit example from above:
You cannot use a figment to create a flat image of 3D lava on a floor. HOWEVER, if you were to excavate a pit in the floor, you could fill that pit in the floor with Illusory lava. I actually really like this example because once you understand it, it becomes a lot easier to figure out what can be a figment and what can't be.
I hope this helps. Here is the link to the sourced article All About Illusions (Part Four)
They use an example of auto-disbelief. A fighter falling through an illusary floor (silent image, lets say), he didn't examine it before hand, so no other check. Now, does he get any kind of save to not fall to the bottom and go ow. Other than the possibility of acrobatics/fly/etc... though would he even get those?
Elamdri,
Yes, a figment REQUIRES open space to work, but there is nothing that says you can't use a 2D forced perspective to make something appear 3D.
In my Lava pit example from above, it was a continuation of my example in a previous thread which the OP linked to. In that discussion I explained how I would create a pit illusion. Moving this onto the lava pit example:
1) you create a 2 inch high raised mound of dirt or raised floor of your choice.
2) you then create a 1 inch drop on the inside of this mound.
3) on the surface of that mound you create your lava effect.
All of that illusion is in "Empty Space" and perfectly legal. If it helps to think of it like a well with water nearly to the brim, that might be a better visual. Think of it not only as creating the lava, but also creating the container which holds the lava. You can even mask the edges of the container if you slope your edges instead of using a sharp line.
The illusion is effective because there is no way of knowing just how deep the lava pit is without jumping in. Of course, once they jump in they realize its only a 2-inch raised illusion of a lava pit.
Now, if you can create an image of a painting, then logically you can make a painting that depicts basically anything, including a forced perspective pit. All that is required is that you create this image in empty space.
You won't fool everyone in the room as the perspective depends on your viewing angle, but sometimes you only need to fool one person. This is a perfectly reasonable and legal interpretation of the rules. IMHO
Additionally, if you can create moving images (such as a walking dog) then you should be able to manipulate the image of the painting on the wall to adjust to the perspective of a particular viewer.
But can you manipulate the image to adjust to the perspective of multiple viewers?
If more than one creature views the illusion, it should look a bit "off" to all the others.Also, forced perspective art is very much a skill that needs to be learned, and is not the same as making a image of a real thing. Especially if the perspective of the image is not the one your observing it from.
you could create the dirt hole in dirt, and lava as figments... doesnt work when someone tries to stand on it, unless you go get dirt from somewhere else, or use something else for it...
not to mention the others giving that 'one' a +4 to disbelieve.
|
|
They use an example of auto-disbelief. A fighter falling through an illusary floor (silent image, lets say), he didn't examine it before hand, so no other check. Now, does he get any kind of save to not fall to the bottom and go ow. Other than the possibility of acrobatics/fly/etc... though would he even get those?
He doesn't get a save to not fall. If he was examining or probing the floor ahead of him before fully stepping on it, he would have received a will save. But since he did not do that, he falls through the floor, no save, and instantly disbelieves the floor.
He does not get a acrobatics check to negate the damage because he did not intentionally jump.
I would assume if he had some means of flight, he could stop the fall and simply fly, assuming it would take a standard action to do so.
This is part of the reason why illusions are nasty. If you are not clever or have contingencies in place, you will never get the save to avoid certain death (Such as falling through an illusory floor into a pit of lava).
But can you manipulate the image to adjust to the perspective of multiple viewers?
If more than one creature views the illusion, it should look a bit "off" to all the others.Also, forced perspective art is very much a skill that needs to be learned, and is not the same as making a image of a real thing. Especially if the perspective of the image is not the one your observing it from.
I understand the limitation of being able to only fool one person. which is why it's not the best option. I would use the lava pit or something similar in 9/10 times in most situations.
There is a bit of skill required for the art, but I would argue that a high int wizard should be smart enough to handle it.
|
|
Elamdri, Yes, a figment REQUIRES open space to work, but there is nothing that says you can't use a 2D forced perspective to make something appear 3D.
In my Lava pit example from above, it was a continuation of my example in a previous thread which the OP linked to. In that discussion I explained how I would create a pit illusion. Moving this onto the lava pit example:
1) you create a 2 inch high raised mound of dirt or raised floor of your choice.
2) you then create a 1 inch drop on the inside of this mound.
3) on the surface of that mound you create your lava effect.All of that illusion is in "Empty Space" and perfectly legal. If it helps to think of it like a well with water nearly to the brim, that might be a better visual. Think of it not only as creating the lava, but also creating the container which holds the lava. You can even mask the edges of the container if you slope your edges instead of using a sharp line.
The illusion is effective because there is no way of knowing just how deep the lava pit is without jumping in. Of course, once they jump in they realize its only a 2-inch raised illusion of a lava pit.
Now, if you can create an image of a painting, then logically you can make a painting that depicts basically anything, including a forced perspective pit. All that is required is that you create this image in empty space.
You won't fool everyone in the room as the perspective depends on your viewing angle, but sometimes you only need to fool one person. This is a perfectly reasonable and legal interpretation of the rules. IMHO
The problem with the forced perspective argument is that you are still trying to get around the rule of making something look like something else.
Taken to it's logical extreme: I could conjure a figment around me of a box, and make it so that from any angle, someone who viewed the box would see an exact image of the scenery behind the box, effectively making me invisible.
And that's the problem. By what you just said, I've not done anything wrong. My box is taking up 3 dimensional space, and I'm merely using forced perspective to make the sides of the box look like what is behind them to the viewer from every angle.
But I am STILL essentially duplicating a glammer spell (Invisibility) using a figment. And that is against the rules.
Now, for your 2 inch lava pool, yes, you can certainly build your 2 inch dirt mound, dig a 1 inch hole in it, and fill it with 1 inch of illusory lava. But that only works because Lava is opaque.
If you were to do the same thing, but with water, anyone who looked at it would clearly see that it is only 1 inch deep, because water is clear.
And that's the problem with the forced perspective with the Pit-Painting. Yes, the painting is a 3D object existing in real space, not on the floor, but you are still ultimately trying to make it look like a Void of some sort exists in the floor and a figment CANNOT do that.
To put it simply:
A figment cannot create the illusion of empty space where something physical exists, no matter how you try to do it. You cannot make things invisible using figments using my box example and you cannot make pits in the floor using your painting example.
Your lava pit example is legal because you are not trying to make it appear as though there is negative space, you are just abusing the fact that Lava is opaque and you cannot tell from just looking at it if the lava is 1 inch deep or 100 feet deep.
A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.
There is another option that this guide hadn't considered. You can indeed make the archway look like an unbroken wall if you build a completely unbroken wall right in front of the archway. The guide was a little short-sighted in that regard.
With illusions, there's almost always a way to achieve what you want. You just need to be creative enough.
|
|
A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.
There is another option that this guide hadn't considered. You can indeed make the archway look like an unbroken wall if you build a completely unbroken wall right in front of the archway. The guide was a little short-sighted in that regard.
With illusions, there's almost always a way to achieve what you want. You just need to be creative enough.
Except your hallway will be uneven on one side.
The problem with the forced perspective argument is that you are still trying to get around the rule of making something look like something else.
Taken to it's logical extreme: I could conjure a figment around me of a box, and make it so that from any angle, someone who viewed the box would see an exact image of the scenery behind the box, effectively making me invisible.
And that's the problem. By what you just said, I've not done anything wrong. My box is taking up 3 dimensional space, and I'm merely using forced perspective to make the sides of the box look like what is behind them to the viewer from every angle.
But I am STILL essentially duplicating a glammer spell (Invisibility) using a figment. And that is against the rules.
Now, for your 2 inch lava pool, yes, you can certainly build your 2 inch dirt mound, dig a 1 inch hole in it, and fill it with 1 inch of illusory lava. But that only works because Lava is opaque.
If you were to do the same thing, but with water, anyone who looked at it would clearly see that it is only 1 inch deep, because water is clear.
And that's the problem with the forced perspective with the Pit-Painting. Yes, the painting is a 3D object existing in real space, not on the floor, but you are still ultimately trying to make it look like a Void of some sort exists in the floor and a figment CANNOT do that.
To put it simply:
A figment cannot create the illusion of empty space where something physical exists, no matter how you try to do it. You cannot make things invisible using figments using my box example and you cannot make pits in the floor using your painting example.
Your lava pit example is legal because you are not trying to make it appear as though there is negative space, you are just abusing the fact that Lava is opaque and you cannot tell from just looking at it if the lava is 1 inch deep or 100 feet deep.
With all due respect, I completely disagree with you here. The water could be colored in such a way that it would able to mask the floor underneath it. A deep pool looks much different on the surface compared to a shallow pool.
With your invisibility box. I imagine you could do that if you wanted to, and considering the limitations of the spell being concentration based and the dangers of someone walking into the box ruining the illusion as well as multiple viewers ruining the spell, I would allow it as GM. Besides, It's much easier to just create a wall for you to hide behind to avoid the whole perspective problem.
Both methods mentioned have the same effect of hiding you from the enemy, so I do not see the problem.
BTW paint is opaque and a forced perspective painting is opaque. The pit illusion is possible, but not ideal as I've mentioned.
Except your hallway will be uneven on one side.
A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.
There is another option that this guide hadn't considered. You can indeed make the archway look like an unbroken wall if you build a completely unbroken wall right in front of the archway. The guide was a little short-sighted in that regard.
With illusions, there's almost always a way to achieve what you want. You just need to be creative enough.
Not as uneven as you might think. The brick wall you create can be as thick as you want it to be.. a 1/2" bow in the wall would be hardly noticeable to the average joe.
|
|
Not as uneven as you might think. The brick wall you create can be as thick as you want it to be.. a 1/2" bow in the wall would be hardly noticeable to the average joe.Except your hallway will be uneven on one side.
A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.
There is another option that this guide hadn't considered. You can indeed make the archway look like an unbroken wall if you build a completely unbroken wall right in front of the archway. The guide was a little short-sighted in that regard.
With illusions, there's almost always a way to achieve what you want. You just need to be creative enough.
But at some point, you have to draw the line between figments and glammers. Your figment could easily be 1/4" thick or 1/8" thick or 1/16" thick...but at some point, you're going to have to acknowledge that you're not trying to put a wall in front of an archway, you're trying to make an archway look like a solid wall.
The problem is still that at the end of the day, you're trying to replicate a glammer using a figment, and that's not legal.
Figments looks the same to everyone. if you want something to look different to everyone (ie: multiple perspective) you looking at a pattern, or phantasm
But at some point, you have to draw the line between figments and glammers. Your figment could easily be 1/4" thick or 1/8" thick or 1/16" thick...but at some point, you're going to have to acknowledge that you're not trying to put a wall in front of an archway, you're trying to make an archway look like a solid wall.
The problem is still that at the end of the day, you're trying to replicate a glammer using a figment, and that's not legal.
Again, I completely disagree with your interpretation here. What you are now trying to tell me is that there is some arbitrary limit to where a figment is considered a glammer.
Considering every aspect of the pit illusion is perfectly reasonable and legal within the confines of the spell, you're telling me that because one person's perspective of the illusion could be misconstrued as a glammer spell, it is therefore illegal.
I just don't buy that.
But at some point, you have to draw the line between figments and glammers. Your figment could easily be 1/4" thick or 1/8" thick or 1/16" thick...but at some point, you're going to have to acknowledge that you're not trying to put a wall in front of an archway, you're trying to make an archway look like a solid wall.
The problem is still that at the end of the day, you're trying to replicate a glammer using a figment, and that's not legal.
It doesn't matter what you're trying to do, it matters what you actually do.
If you drop a wall in front of the archway, as long as that wall completely covers the archway, you can't see the archway. It doesn't matter what the archway looks like because it can't be seen.
If you want, you can make an image of a horse and wagon, and your party can march smack in the middle of that wagon. It doesn't matter that Veil can create a similar illusion. Veil actually makes the party look and feel like a horse and wagon, so the effect isn't remotely the same.
Similarly, you can create a copse of trees in a field. Hallucinatory Terrain can do the same thing, only with a longer duration, larger area, and it doesn't require concentration.
Nowhere does it say a figment can't be used to produce an effect similar to a glamer. Figments are limited in what they can do, but as long as you stay within those limitations they can look like anything.
|
|
If you drop a wall in front of the archway, as long as that wall completely covers the archway, you can't see the archway. It doesn't matter what the archway looks like because it can't be seen.
Yes, but at the same time, you cannot make the wall you create flush with the wall behind it. It must in fact look like a wall in front of a wall.
If you want, you can make an image of a horse and wagon, and your party can march smack in the middle of that wagon. It doesn't matter that Veil can create a similar illusion. Veil actually makes the party look and feel like a horse and wagon, so the effect isn't remotely the same.
Yes, but anyone looking at the wagon from the side rather than above will probably see the party's legs sticking out of the bottom of the wagon and walking along the ground.
Similarly, you can create a copse of trees in a field. Hallucinatory Terrain can do the same thing, only with a longer duration, larger area, and it doesn't require concentration.
Well, that's somewhat correct. There are other benefits to Hallucinatory Terrain though. It can make an area of the ground look, sound, and smell like a lake or a swamp for example. A figment cannot replicate that effect.
They can both replicate the trees, because trees easily fall into a category of legal figments. But you cannot create a figment of a swamp or a lake because you would then be making the ground look like something it is not.
Nowhere does it say a figment can't be used to produce an effect similar to a glamer. Figments are limited in what they can do, but as long as you stay within those limitations they can look like anything.
They can sometimes produce effects similar to a glammer, but not always and that is where we are getting tripped up in this thread.
I can use a figment to create a fake tree and then hide in it. But the tree is still fake and anyone who touches it will reach right through it.
I can use a glammer on the other hand to make myself look and FEEL like a tree, so that someone who touches it and fails their save feels a tree.
But there are clearly things that I cannot do with a figment. I cannot for example use a figment to make it appear as though there is a hole in the floor. I can use a figment to cover or fill the hole with an illusion, but I cannot create the illusion of a hole where one does not exist with a figment.
Likewise, I cannot make something invisible with a figment. I can create an illusion and hide behind it or inside it, but I cannot make myself invisible.
Yes, but at the same time, you cannot make the wall you create flush with the wall behind it. It must in fact look like a wall in front of a wall.
100% flush? no. But a brick wall is hardly 100% flush. And if you taper the edges, it will look as if it is nearly flush. Just look at the walls in a home.. Most look flush but hold a straight edge near the corner, you will realize a slight concave edge where the corner bead is placed.
Now in the example to create illusions, one example is to fill a concave depression in the sand with water. Think of the brick wall as the opposite. Instead of filling a concave depression you are creating an outward concave brick wall. Those seeing it will not notice the difference.
Yes, but anyone looking at the wagon from the side rather than above will probably see the party's legs sticking out of the bottom of the wagon and walking along the ground.
I agree with you on this point. However, one potential way around this is to have hanging decorative drapes that drag on the ground around the cabin of the wagon that could hide the party's legs.. Although if the image is moving, one might question the lack of wagon tracks being made yet footprints are somehow present.
Well, that's somewhat correct. There are other benefits to Hallucinatory Terrain though. It can make an area of the ground look, sound, and smell like a lake or a swamp for example. A figment cannot replicate that effect.
They can both replicate the trees, because trees easily fall into a category of legal figments. But you cannot create a figment of a swamp or a lake because you would then be making the ground look like something it is not.
And that's the benefit of a glammer over a figment. Figments only fool sight whereas glammer can fool much more.
But there are clearly things that I cannot do with a figment. I cannot for example use a figment to make it appear as though there is a hole in the floor. I can use a figment to cover or fill the hole with an illusion, but I cannot create the illusion of a hole where one does not exist with a figment.
Would you at least agree on the point that a figment can indeed make an illusion of a painting on a wall?
And if you can at least agree to that, I posit that you could create forced perspective to make something appear 3D from one vantage point
|
|
But there are clearly things that I cannot do with a figment. I cannot for example use a figment to make it appear as though there is a hole in the floor. I can use a figment to cover or fill the hole with an illusion, but I cannot create the illusion of a hole where one does not exist with a figment.Would you at least agree on the point that a figment can indeed make an illusion of a painting on a wall?
And if you can at least agree to that, I posit that you could create forced perspective to make something appear 3D from one vantage point
I agree that you can make a painting.
I think that the forced vantage point thing is a rather complicated ordeal and outside the contemplation by the rules, so it is up to the DM. If I were DM, I would make you designate the 5 ft. square where looking at the painting is within the forced perspective and I would also probably have you make an Intelligence check.
As for combining the two to make a forced perspective appear as though it were a hole in the floor, I still thing that you are going against the spirit of the rules with that, and I would probably disallow it in my games.
|
I had a similar discussion recently with my GM about this. Here was the scenario:
Small farm yard, big door to the barn wide open, some hog pens with hogs in them rooting around, and we fought an ogrekin and a few of his wardogs.
After slaughtering them, we heard a few more coming around the other side of the house, and had 3 actions in which to do something.
So, I wanted to use Minor Image (lvl 2) spell to create the illusion that the Ogre we killed wasn't dead, just mortally wounded, and that we the adventurers were laying there dead, while in reality we adventurers were hiding behind the illusion ready to ambush the oncoming bad guys.
At 8th level, I could make 12 10'x10' cubes in which to recreate this scene. I intended to use the minor sounds to replicate the ogrekin moaning and wailing out his pain and misery, but other than that, nothing else.
So, could I do this? By placing the cubes directly over the body of the dogs and ogrekin, and then my companions?
Or would I instead have to sort of build a "wall" of them, and project an image on it similar to a "tv show" or whatever of what i wanted the new arrivals to see, in which we were standing behind the illusion??
Understandably, if the new ogrekin bad guys touched the illusory things I created, they would get their save.
As it was, GM ruled I could place the illusions over the barnyard and make it appear how I wanted, but when the new bad guys called out to the illusory mortally wounded wailing ogrekin, that counted as "interacting" and thus they got their save....2 failed, 1 made it, so we sprung our ambush and the rogue got SA against the flat footed 2 that failed saves and ganked the one, while our ranger and fighter ganged up and raped the 2nd, and I engaged the one that made his save.
Anyhow, just looking for input. Was what I did not possible? How would I have had to go about recreating a slightly different yet similar barnyard setting??
I agree that you can make a painting.
I think that the forced vantage point thing is a rather complicated ordeal and outside the contemplation by the rules, so it is up to the DM. If I were DM, I would make you designate the 5 ft. square where looking at the painting is within the forced perspective and I would also probably have you make an Intelligence check.
As for combining the two to make a forced perspective appear as though it were a hole in the floor, I still thing that you are going against the spirit of the rules with that, and I would probably disallow it in my games.
Forced perspective isn't as difficult as you might think, I remember learning about it in grade-school. And, a wizard who practices his art with the help of a willing subject could certainly learn to adjust the image as the person moves about the room. But yeah an intelligence check, or perhaps a Craft-Painting check might be appropriate to pull off the feat.
It's OK if you decide to disallow it in your games, I just think that to do what I'm suggesting is perfectly legal, and since it is so much inferior to other methods of accomplishing the same results, I would allow a player to use the method. Why stifle a players creativity?
|
|
I had a similar discussion recently with my GM about this. Here was the scenario:
Small farm yard, big door to the barn wide open, some hog pens with hogs in them rooting around, and we fought an ogrekin and a few of his wardogs.
After slaughtering them, we heard a few more coming around the other side of the house, and had 3 actions in which to do something.
So, I wanted to use Minor Image (lvl 2) spell to create the illusion that the Ogre we killed wasn't dead, just mortally wounded, and that we the adventurers were laying there dead, while in reality we adventurers were hiding behind the illusion ready to ambush the oncoming bad guys.
At 8th level, I could make 12 10'x10' cubes in which to recreate this scene. I intended to use the minor sounds to replicate the ogrekin moaning and wailing out his pain and misery, but other than that, nothing else.
So, could I do this? By placing the cubes directly over the body of the dogs and ogrekin, and then my companions?
Or would I instead have to sort of build a "wall" of them, and project an image on it similar to a "tv show" or whatever of what i wanted the new arrivals to see, in which we were standing behind the illusion??
Understandably, if the new ogrekin bad guys touched the illusory things I created, they would get their save.
As it was, GM ruled I could place the illusions over the barnyard and make it appear how I wanted, but when the new bad guys called out to the illusory mortally wounded wailing ogrekin, that counted as "interacting" and thus they got their save....2 failed, 1 made it, so we sprung our ambush and the rogue got SA against the flat footed 2 that failed saves and ganked the one, while our ranger and fighter ganged up and raped the 2nd, and I engaged the one that made his save.
Anyhow, just looking for input. Was what I did not possible? How would I have had to go about recreating a slightly different yet similar barnyard setting??
So here is the deal.
Creating the Dying Ogrekin and the Dead Adventurers, totally legal (Although you might run into an argument that those spells only create ONE figment and you are trying to create several).
The problem comes with you hiding the Dead Ogrekin and your party. Figments cannot do that.
What would have happened if I was running the game was the Ogrekin would have walked up on the following scene:
There is an illusion of a Dying ogrekin laying on the ground, and there are parts of the real dead ogrekin sticking out of the Illusion whenever the illusion moves around. There are also several dead party member illusions lying on the ground, and finally, there is the party, standing completely out in the open, but miming as though they were hiding behind a wall or something.
And that's really the issue: Figments must be Opaque to hide behind something. You can't make illusory air that somehow blocks line of sight.
I would have let you do what Dr. Grecko has been suggesting and allow you to create a giant, 2D Painting of what you described with a forced perspective, and then you could hide behind the Painting, but since there are multiple Ogrekin, it probably wouldn't have worked very well because at least one would probably have noticed they were just looking at a 2D image.
In my opinion, here is the better suggestion:
You can still make the dead party members. Instead of making the dead ogre look alive, create a 2nd Ogrekin that is dying away from the other one, preferably where you want the living Ogrekin to go.
Finally, create an Illusory Shed or outhouse or whatever, and have the party hide behind or inside that illusion.
That would totally work and there would be absolutely no way to complain that you're not using the spell right (apart from the argument about multiple figments with one spell)
In my opinion, here is the better suggestion:
You can still make the dead party members. Instead of making the dead ogre look alive, create a 2nd Ogrekin that is dying away from the other one, preferably where you want the living Ogrekin to go.
Finally, create an Illusory Shed or outhouse or whatever, and have the party hide behind or inside that illusion.
That would totally work and there would be absolutely no way to complain that you're not using the spell right (apart from the argument about multiple figments with one spell)
Agreed. This might be difficult to do with just one illusion. Here's how I would do it.
It's a barn, so use one image to create the scene of the living ogre and dead party members away from the rest of the party. A second image can be created to hide the current party. You're in a barn, so I would suggest hay bails to hide behind.
|
|
In my opinion, here is the better suggestion:
You can still make the dead party members. Instead of making the dead ogre look alive, create a 2nd Ogrekin that is dying away from the other one, preferably where you want the living Ogrekin to go.
Finally, create an Illusory Shed or outhouse or whatever, and have the party hide behind or inside that illusion.
That would totally work and there would be absolutely no way to complain that you're not using the spell right (apart from the argument about multiple figments with one spell)
Agreed. This might be difficult to do with just one illusion. Here's how I would do it.
It's a barn, so use one image to create the scene of the living ogre and dead party members away from the rest of the party. A second image can be created to hide the current party. You're in a barn, so I would suggest hay bails to hide behind.
I think at minimum, you would need 2 illusions:
1 illusion of a dying Ogre (minor image) and just make it look like the two fought each other, and one killed the other but in the process was mortally wounded.
and 1 illusion of something (hay bales, shed, outhouse, haystack) whatever for the party to hide inside of or behind. (Silent Image)
I think at minimum, you would need 2 illusions:
1 illusion of a dying Ogre (minor image) and just make it look like the two fought each other, and one killed the other but in the process was mortally wounded.
and 1 illusion of something (hay bales, shed, outhouse, haystack) whatever for the party to hide inside of or behind. (Silent Image)
Possibly, The area of effect of these illusion is 4 - 10ft Cubes + 1 10ft cube per level. You may be able to accomplish everything with one, but that would depend on an even overly liberal reading of the spell than I would normally give as well.
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you.
A strict reading would require a spell per creature, per hay-bail, per sword strewn across the ground. Whereas a liberal interpretation may be able to encompass the entire image in one provided it fits the AoE
|
|
Shoulda just gone with a T-Rex like I planned then, munching upon the dead ogrekin whilst we heroes hid inside the barn.
Alas.
Understanding how illusions work is important, but I wouldn't get TOO caught up in it. It's always going to be some degree of GM discretion.
Something I wanted to point out from the post you made was the GM's interacting with your illusions.
You should read this part of the 4 part article on illusions to get a better sense of what constitutes interacting.