Silent image as camouflage

[Sensten]

Maybe I just failed at searching, but can "silent image" work as a sort of camouflage screen? Sort of like a wall of "ocean" a ship could hide behind? Or maybe put it in front of sails/flags to change our emblem?

I've read a couple threads that suggested that you could create moving images within the silent image; is it enough to simulate the movement of waves or flapping of cloth in the wind?

[Avianfoo]

As long as you concentrate, silent image can be anything. A fog bank, flapping cloth, an army of soldiers (or at least a sizable platoon) etc etc.

[Icyshadow]

Depends on your Caster Level, and how long you Concentrate on it.

[Strannik]

This can also depend on GM. I've had GMs that would allow such things (as would I), but others that are very stingy w/ what illusion magic can do or how people react to seeing the illusion. Those GMs tend to be less fun...

[Christopher Woldridge]

You can only move the move the image within the limits of the spell (four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level). Depending on if the GM sees that as a fixed area or the area it can fill. You may find you will quickly leave your image behind if it is on the sail of a moving ship. If you are a gmome look at getting Effortless Trickery.

[Gjorbjond]

Silent Image is an Illusion (Figment). You can use them to create something to hide behind, but you can't actually change how something that exists looks. That would be a Glamer. You could create an illusion of a big rock and hide behind it, but you couldn't create an illusion of a big rock and hide IN it.

[Charlie Bell]

SRD wrote:

Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.

SRD wrote:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

The way I read this, you can hide behind a figment of a rock, but you can't cast a silent image of a rock over yourself, because that is just making you look like a rock.

OTOH, I would rule that a silent image of floor over a pit trap is fine, because a pit is a hole--you aren't making something look like something else (glamer territory), you are making floor appear where there was nothing (the pit) before.

Figments are tricky for GMs to adjudicate because there aren't examples for comparison. Ask four different GMs and you will get five different answers.

EDIT: Totally ninja'd by Gjorbjond.

[Calybos1]

On the "GM experience may vary" point, also be aware that other illusion-hating GMs may rule that all your allies are forced to automatically believe the illusion and get no saving throw, or that even if you know it's an illusion it still blocks your view of the enemy, etc. etc.

An awful lot of GMs simply won't let illusions work in their games.

[Christopher Woldridge]

So on the Figment vs Glamer point. What I am reading is that you are saying that you can you can make a Silent Image of a 10' block of solid rock. But you are unable to walk into the area containg the rock because that would make you look like something else. Seriously?

Why would I not be able to make a figment of a metal door just because I want to put it in front of a real wooden door? Now if someone opens that door from the otherside it would pass through the figment of the metal door. Kind of ruins the effect. If it was a glamor on the door it could be opened from either side and it would look like you were opening a metal door, as the glamor makes the door look different.

[Grismar]

Regarding the difference between a figment and a glamer: I don't think the rock example is very clear.

As a GM, I would be fine with a figment of a rock which appears to be in the exact place where you are, allowing you to hide "inside it". I don't think is this abusing the figment as a glamer, as glamer has the added advantage of moving with the subject. (Crispy3ed ninjaed in, but I agree with them)

So, creating a figment of a rock and hiding inside works, but the figment is stationary. Glamering a character to look like a rock, allows the character to move around, looking like a convincing rock when still.

Additionally, the figment could result in a situation where the character accidentally sticks something outside the figment and gets noticed. Whereas the glamer would have changes the way the character looks itself, so that won't happen.

The original question also asked about moving images. A figment can move and if a character moves with it, this can make for a convincing illusion. But a glamer can move with a character, making it far less complicated.

For example, a Silent Image of a sizeable (non-specific) priest in a wide cloak might conceil a party member and even appear to be leafing through a prayer book (without sound effects of course). However, casting a Veil might make the same party member look like that priest and allow them to walk around and interact with the environment, their cloak feeling real and smelling of freshly brewed beer (no sound effects though, oddly).

A creative player might create a Silent Image of a cloaked priest, crossing a corridor to fool a guard and allowing a party member to sneak across unseen, as long as the party member stays in perfect sync with the image, but as a GM I would still have them make a tricky Stealth check to see if they succeed in staying within the ruse.

[Sensten]

Thanks for all the replies