| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So here's the situation.
Assuming a 10x10 room lit by conventional means (torch, sunlit window, etc), one good guy, and one bad guy (referred to as character A, and Foe A respectively) how would you rule the following situations?
1) The light source goes out, plunging the room into darkness. So character A casts silent image of a torch projecting a similar field of light. Problem solved? What happens? Would the image of a torch provide illumination in the absence of actual light?
2) The light source goes out, plunging the room into darkness. So character A casts silent image of the room itself, recreating an illusion of the room in perfect detail according to how he remembers it right before the light went out. Problem solved? What happens? Is the silent image actually visible, or does it need a source of light to be visible?
3) So character A decides he doesn't like the well lit room, so he casts silent image to project a sphere of total darkness. Now Foe A has darkvision, but it is to no avail unless he saves, right? So unless he makes a save by interacting with the illusion (how would one go about doing that to a sphere of darkness btw?), would foe A be effectively blinded?
4)So character A decides he doesn't like the well lit room, so he casts silent image to project a sphere of total darkness, in addition to a black and white image of the room inside the sphere. Now Foe A has darkvision, and in his mind the darkvision is functioning. Same question as above, would this image within an image function without a light source (or even at all?)
Much thanks to those who respond, I know that illusion magic questions are often the sources of many headaches but I was hoping we could get this straightened out once and for all.
Silent image is an illusion (figment) spell. Let's start with that.
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).
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.
A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
So the only limitations are it can't make something seem to be something else, and it cannot produce "real effects".
Now here is silent image:
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.
So it creates the visual illusion. No sound, smell, texture, or temperature. Easy enough.
1) Silent image of a torch? It would look and function as a torch, unless you tried to touch/smell/get burned by it. It would light the room again.
2) It would look however character A thought it did. However, if he thought there was a footstool in the corner, and it was actually a chest, it would still be a chest, because figments cannot make something look like something it isn't. Additionally, there is no light source, so nobody could see his illusion (Unless they had darkvision).
3) Visual sphere of darkness? Is darkness an "object, creature or force"? I think darkness is the lack of light, not its own object. Invalid application of the spell, spell fizzles.
4) Again, I don't think darkness is an "object, creature, or force" and the spell would fizzle. Alternately, you could get a B&W image of the room still, but the darkness aspect would still fizzle. Again, anything you tried to obscure, could not be, as figments cannot make something look like something else.
Lastly, the disclaimer. This is how I would rule, but illusions are such an open thing, there is no "RAW" as to what is or isn't allowed or how to rule on them. This is how I would rule in my game.
1) No problem. The figment torch will have no heat, but figments is an image, light is an image, images require light to even function, so it makes perfect sense for an image to be able to produce light.
2) If the image of the room includes illumination, as it did before the light source went out, then that illumination should be adequate to make the image visible.
3) As a general rule, I would not allow any spell to duplicate a spell of a higher level, therefore it seems to me that creating a "sphere of total darkness" might be beyond the ability of a Silent Image spell, but reproducing a Darkness spell (but limited to Silent Image's area) would be plausible.
4) I would only allow this if Character A has darkvision. The description of illusion magic says "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)" so the caster must have experienced darkvision to be able to reproduce it. Also, if Foe A has darkvision and Character A casts his Silent Image to make it dark (like Darkness), Foe A can see the room normally anyway, so it would not matter if the Silent Image had a black and white room or not, unless Character A alters the black and white image of the room, in which case Foe A will see the image, not the actual room.
Final thought: All of these examples include the fact that Foe A is interacting with the Silent Image so he gets a Will Save. Even the first example, he's using the illusionary light to see, that counts as interaction and grants the save. What's really interesting is that saving against a figment lets you still see the translucent outline of the figment - so is the translucent outline enough illumination to see the dark room?
I am particularly interested in questions such as;
Does a Figment block light?
Can a Figment cast a genuine shadow (potentially going beyond the borders of the spell's range)?
If not, what might happen if an illusionist does not include shadows with his Figments? Alternatively, what might happen when he includes an illusory shadow in areas where his illusory shadow cannot extend as far as it realistically should (such as at dusk, when two dueling wizards' natural shadows extend to the horizon)?
Can a Figment (such as a torch) emit light?
If so, does it emit 'real' light beyond the borders of the spell's range?
If so, can a Figment appear to be a magical effect, such as an amulet affected by daylight?
Can an Figment appear to be illuminated without shedding illumination? For example, could an illusionist in a dark room create a Figment of a dimly-illuminated figure?
I suppose that some of these may be cleaned up by answering the single question "Is emitting and blocking light considered a 'real' effect?". I believe I've read all the relevant text, but I keep coming up with new arguments about which way it is.
I would want to say that the line "Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can." that figments cannot alter the way light travels in a room; though I don't see any reason you couldn't create an illusionary shadow within range.
If you can interfere with light reflections/propagation/travel/whatever, you could do the same with sound. You would also be able use sound figments to prevent spells. Make a continuous tone and you can essentially silence one equal but opposite tone that he would need to cast by use of destructive interference.
All that being said, I don't see anything preventing you from creating a solid blob a few feat out from your enemy that he couldn't see through, it would look black enough to him. It would probably take some readied actions to have it move with him.
Does a Figment block light?
My answer would be, it looks realistic if you want it to, but it won't obscure something (figments can't hide objects).
Can a Figment cast a genuine shadow (potentially going beyond the borders of the spell's range)?
No, the shadow it casts is part of the image to make it look realistic, it can't go beyond the range of the spell.
If not, what might happen if an illusionist does not include shadows with his Figments? Alternatively, what might happen when he includes an illusory shadow in areas where his illusory shadow cannot extend as far as it realistically should (such as at dusk, when two dueling wizards' natural shadows extend to the horizon)?
I'd give a bonus to see through the illusion due to it being more obvious. Nothing RAW.
Can a Figment (such as a torch) emit light? Sure
If so, does it emit 'real' light beyond the borders of the spell's range?
No. It is limited to the area of effect of the spell.
If so, can a Figment appear to be a magical effect, such as an amulet affected by daylight?
It can appear to be like that, except, you know, creatures sensitive to daylight would realize it doesn't burn.
Can an Figment appear to be illuminated without shedding illumination? For example, could an illusionist in a dark room create a Figment of a dimly-illuminated figure?
Sure.
I suppose that some of these may be cleaned up by answering the single question "Is emitting and blocking light considered a 'real' effect?". I believe I've read all the relevant text, but I keep coming up with new arguments about which way it is.
You can emit light, you can't make shadow. Figment illusions are explicitly barred from making an object look like something else. That includes making it look like darkness.
"(figments can't hide objects)."
More from curiosity, where does it say this? I was looking for this yesterday. I seem to recall that something like it exists in the rules, but the entire Illusion school description does not have this line.
Based on memory, I agree that you can't create a figment that hides an object -- like hiding the rogue inside an illusory boulder. But I disagree that figments can never hide objects. For example, illusory wall can hide traps; creatures can hide within a mirage arcana as if it were a real location. If illusions could dogmatically never hide objects, then one would also have to question what effect disbelieving an illusion (and the illusion becoming transparent) actually has, if it doesn't hide anything behind it in the first place.
I assume, based on your answer that the light cannot extend beyond the range of the spell, that light created by an illusion is illusory light.
The idea of illusory bright light not acting like bright light is puzzling to me, but I can't definitely say I feel it's wrong. I do feel tempted to say that creatures with Light Sensitivity would take attack penalties -- they're sensitive to bright light, and the illusory light is bright! However, given that sunlight is often considered a mystical power*, I wouldn't have illusory sunlight burn vampires or anything. I'm less sure on in-between cases, like the Shadow Demon, which is affected by sunlight or bright light. That feels a bit less like the monster reacting to environmental conditions, and more like the spell having an effect on the monster.
To criticize my own position, the game doesn't really distinguish much between effects that affect monsters, and monsters that are affected by effects. Mechanically, Light Sensitivity, Light Vulnerability and the rest are all special qualities that monsters possess. A mold monster would probably have a sunlight weakness ability, even if sunlight would retard the growth of mold on its own merits.
I think I agree that you can't make shadows on objects. Darkening an illuminated surface is more like a Glamer, if it's within the realm of illusions at all.
Then I start thinking, "Couldn't I create a clay white sphere hanging in the air? So why can't I create a matte black sphere that appears to be a darkness spell?" Of course, it would look the same to both normal vision and darkvision -- illusions don't have dual-layer effects for that kind of result.
Some of this is could be from overthinking.
I know some of that might sound argumentative, but I'm just trying to get a good working illusion system down that's consistent, fair, and fun to run for both enemies and PCs.
[* Sunlight, moonlight, and starlight are now officially the 'ambient light sources' that darkness effects adjust after quenching nonmagical light sources]
"Figments can't hide objects" is a fallacy. Of course you can make a figment of a boulder for a rogue to hide in. It just won't move with the rogue like a glamer would and anyone seeing the rogue move through the boulder would get a will save to disbelieve the illusionary boulder. In fact the illusionist could probably roll the boulder along with the rogue when the rogue moves...but that might look a bit silly in the wrong circumstances (with new disbelieve saves).
The misunderstanding comes from the line "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." What this actually means is that you cannot "pin" a silent image to someone like you could with disguise self (which is a glamer), to make the party look like for example, a bunch of guards. But it can still create the illusion of a bunch of guards and have the PCs stand in the illusion. However any attempt to move will reveal those under the illusion since even with super Intelligence the illusionist cannot move his illusions perfectly with the PCs inside. Will saves for all to disbelieve ensue.
"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else."
If you make a figment of a boulder, that's fine.
If your rogue then stands in the figment of a boulder, you are now making the rogue look like a boulder. Not fine. The rogue could hide on the backside of the boulder, and that is fine.
You can make a figment of a squad of guards. You can't hide your party in the squad of guards. The guards might provide enough cover for a stealth check however, but you would be hiding on the backside of them, not inside of them.
As for illusory wall, you aren't making the pit look like somethinge else. You are making it look like there is a floor over empty space. Or like there is a wall instead of hallway. You could do the exact same thing with a silent image, except illusory wall has a more useful duration.
If your rogue then stands in the figment of a boulder, you are now making the rogue look like a boulder. Not fine. The rogue could hide on the backside of the boulder, and that is fine.
Your take on this is way too literal. It is known that figments do nothing and that things in general can pass through them without any ill effect. If it is disbelieved you still see an outline of the figment and pass through it as if it isn't there...because there is actually nothing there. If an enemy disbelieves the boulder they will see the rogue inside. (also since when was a rogue an "object"?) By your reading every time something passes through the illusion the entire illusion should vanish and reappear, which is not indicated anywhere.
If this still doesn't convince you then I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm impartial (but interested).
I can find the text that a Figment cannot make something to appear to be something else, even if I can't find the text that an illusion can't hide a creature (which, oddly, I'm sure I've seen somewhere -- a 3.5 rule?).
I agree that you can't cast a Figment on your childhood enemy and make him appear to be an evil witch. That's a Glamer, used offensively.
I'm not sure if a rogue hiding inside a boulder is conceptually the same thing.
Even if it is the same thing, I must wonder; how is it that this is prevented?
I imagine that all of us agree, that a boulder can be conjured into an empty space.
So what happens when a rogue enters the boulder? Does the spell fail? Do enemies that enter the area afterward automatically disbelieve the spell? Something else?
I imagine that all of us agree, that a boulder can be conjured into an empty space.
So what happens when a rogue enters the boulder?
Here is my take on what could happen.
Does the spell fail?
No. 'course we are assuming the rogue already saved against the boulder illusion and can see its outline.
Do enemies that enter the area afterward automatically disbelieve the spell?
Well. They can't enter the boulder illusion. Unless they can normally walk through a boulder. But if they see the rogue entering the boulder they sure do get a +4 on their will save because "something is up".
Can a character put their hand through an wall illusion if they believe it is a wall? The higher level illusions even feel like a wall.
Yes, there is a series of Illusion-specific articles from 3.5 that may be of use or conversion to PF.
Here is the first.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
wow. I seem to have radically different opinions here...
1. Um... no? Of course you can not make an illusion of a torch shed light. That's not what it does. First and foremost, an illusion must be perceived to have any effect. If you create an illusion in total darkness, anything without darkvision can not see it. It doesn't matter if your illusion of a torch seems to be shedding light, it's not actually shedding light. It's an illusion.
2. Again, you'd need a light source or darkvision to perceive the illusion in the first place. If you don't have either, your illusion would have no effect.
3. You could project a sphere of total darkness, It would block vision in a well lit room. However if your intention is to use the illusion to create a poor-mans Darkness spell, no you can't do that. It would be the same as making an illusion of a boulder to block line of sight vs the rogue hiding INSIDE the boulder, as Tarantula stated.
4. See 3.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Huh. My opinions here differ somewhat from the consensus. perhaps i am wrong but here goes:
1. Your illusion torch can't shed real light, it just looks like it does. Everybody sees a torch floating unsupported in the air, not actually illuminating the area around it. The caster can create the illusion of an illuminated area as well, but it will contain whatever the caster decides is there, and may have no bearing on "objective reality."
2. If you don't also create an illusionary light source no one without drakvision could see your phantom room. Note you could use silent image to make an area seem exactly the same as it really is, if you want to make detect magic spammers paranoid.
3. I don't think darkness is an object or creature or force. You could get nearly the same effect by making an illusion of thick fog, smoke, or even loose earth filling the space(the last would probably require a tactile illusion to pull off). You could put a cover over the normal light source, but I would rule that much like invisibility that wouldn't block the actual light just the source.
Those are some interesting answers!
They're worth thinking about. I'm whipping up some corner cases for later, but with my preliminary work, I'm becoming more convinced you shouldn't be able to create light with a Figment.
First and foremost, an illusion must be perceived to have any effect. If you create an illusion in total darkness, anything without darkvision can not see it.
They might still perceive it though - some Figments can produce the sensations of the smell, sound and even the heat from a burning torch. It would be odd if it then could not produce its visual results too and (once "perceived" as being a torch) should do so.
However, a Figment is described as a "false sensation", not as a "false effect". So while it should indeed cast light, that light should not have any real effect. Just... don't ask me how that's supposed to work.
Yeah, I'm coming up with a lot of weird things here.
Suppose that an illusory torch is ruled to shed light.
When a creature encounters such a torch in an otherwise dark room, and the creature tries to pick up the torch and disbelieves it, what happens? Does the creature 'see through' the light, but is able to see the illusion? Does the room go dark for the creature?
---
Is it even possible to eliminate illusory light without a dispel or darkness effect? Is disbelieving it, in fact, the only way to remove such illumination (for each affected creature)?
---
An illusionist creates an illusion of a torch while he's alone in a Pathfinder Lodge. His companions enter the room and don't realize that anything is amiss. Later, they stand in a day-lit street and enter into the mouth of the otherwise-lightless sewers. As they travel, does the light shed by his illusory torch allow them to continue seeing the torch, see its illumination, and perceive the environment? Or, as they enter areas of complete darkness, are they then unable to see the illusion and unable to see its illumination?
Does this allow a group of humans to effectively see in areas of total darkness, while any enemies with normal vision encountered in areas of darkness are effectively blinded because they haven't seen the light?
A figment can be made to look like a torch that sheds light. I agree that, that is totally doable. You can make an illusion of a fall of fire. The wall of fire must shed a little light or it will be a dead giveaway that its not real.
"Hey, Jim. This wall of fire is making crackling sounds, feels hot and it looks like a freakin inferno... but its not shedding light so we are in luck!"
If we disallow the illusionary light to extend beyond the edges of the illusion... should be fine... right?
But since this is a figment and not a shadow spell, I would say it can only create mundane light for purposes of how it interacts with darkness spells and the like.