Can silent image be used to place a box around a fight, each side of which looks like an empty street, barring viewers from noticing (visually) a fight going on inside the box?
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.
Or do the words "object, creature or force" mean that you could create an object (such as a solid wall), but not a whole scene facing four different directions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have done so. You are basically creating an illusion of a wall with a painting of the continuation of the road.
If you want to get technical, it would only look right at a specific location or at greater distance; come too close and the perspective won't shift as it would if it were actually a long street. But at a block or two away, just glancing down the street, it should be fine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend creating a silent image of something like a hamburger, rather than bacon. Also, don't make it a cheeseburger, since that has both milk and meat in it.
Just remember your size limit, four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.
This line always bothered me. Just about any figment breaks this rule at a small enough level. For example, an illusionary object blocks line of sight to anything behind it, else it'd be completely unbelievable. So once you make an illusionary cardboard box, if you place it over a crouching person, that person will basically seem to be a cardboard box. You can't make a red-painted monument green with a figment, but why not create an illusionary, monument-shaped film of green paint over it? There's no agreed-upon "common-sense" litmus test for this, which is why I usually have to house rule for illusions to make sense.
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.This line always bothered me. Just about any figment breaks this rule at a small enough level. For example, an illusionary object blocks line of sight to anything behind it, else it'd be completely unbelievable. So once you make an illusionary cardboard box, if you place it over a crouching person, that person will basically seem to be a cardboard box. You can't make a red-painted monument green with a figment, but why not create an illusionary, monument-shaped film of green paint over it? There's no agreed-upon "common-sense" litmus test for this, which is why I usually have to house rule for illusions to make sense.
Putting the illusion of a cardboard box over someone doesn't make them seem to be a box any more than putting an actual box over them does. Similarly, if a person is inside a house, the don't seem to be a house. They still look like they normally do, they're just inside the box (and if you were to look inside the box you'd seem them in there.)
Using that logic, you can bypass the rule completely by creating a hollow shell of whatever you want the thing to look like--at least so long as the disguise is larger than the real thing.
Perhaps, but if you don't have absolute control over that thing, anytime it moves you'd be extremely likely to not move it precisely right. Putting a figment of clothing on a naked emperor for instance would be nearly impossible unless he was completely immobile. Or making a key look like a dagger in someone's hand.
Also, this line of your post is very important: "so long as the disguise is larger".
Making something look different is the job of glamers.
Again, show me how this lets you get infinite wishes - until then, I doubt this is too OP.
Is that where the bar is set these days?
^ Figure out how we can use that loophole to get Miracle as a SLA usable by a rage-cycling barbarian, and then you'll have my attention.
In seriousness, I think the distinction is that a figment has to be actively managed by the caster, whereas a glamer is more of a static effect that doesn't require intervention. Thus, you can make a sword like a broom, and you don't need to concentrate on delicately moving the glamer if you move the sword; it's anchored to the sword and moves with it. A figment, on the other hand, could do the same thing, but removing the sword from the effected area would leave an image of a broom behind, and the sword would look normal.
For a fixed structure like most trees, small buildings, etc., I'd say that they're functionally equivalent. If the figment doesn't need to be moved or adjusted to be convincing, it's as good as a comparable glamer. Want to create a green shell around the statue? Go for it. As long as the statue doesn't fall over, it's going to look the same as if it were glamered.
Again, show me how this lets you get infinite wishes - until then, I doubt this is too OP.
OP-ness is not my concern, only an understanding of the rules as written.
Besides, any tier 9 mythic character can already get miracle as a spell-like ability, barbarian or otherwise. : D
So, um, my original question? Kosher or not? I saw one vote for yes.
I have done so. You are basically creating an illusion of a wall with a painting of the continuation of the road.
If you want to get technical, it would only look right at a specific location or at greater distance; come too close and the perspective won't shift as it would if it were actually a long street. But at a block or two away, just glancing down the street, it should be fine.
This is how it would work.
I vote totally fine, one time we used Silent Image to create a box of 1-way mirrors around an arrow tower, letting us shoot them fine and making it so they didn't have line of sight to us until they disbelieved the illusion.
THAT...*sniff*...is a thing of beauty. I'm stealing it. =D
I vote totally fine, one time we used Silent Image to create a box of 1-way mirrors around an arrow tower, letting us shoot them fine and making it so they didn't have line of sight to us until they disbelieved the illusion.
So your enemies got a chance to disbelieve everytime you shoot an arrow through the mirror? A wall with arrow slits for cover is a better illusion.
In my understanding, figments should work much like holograms. You can create the image of something that is not there, you can make it move, you can have it block line of sight, but an hologram cannot make something look like something else.
Were I the GM, I'd agree with MurphysParadox - you could create the illusion of a wall depicting the continuation of the road. But in the best case this would only work against a single, far viewer, who should have a robust bonus on his saving throw. All others should immediately recognizing the illusion for what it really is.
Therefore, I'd say your usage is not kosher ;)
Given that the fight is almost certainly making noise, I’d rule that anyone looking down the street to find out where the noise is coming from would automatically count as studying the figment carefully and so receive a saving throw.
Also, I’d give a bonus to that saving throw for trying to incorporate forced perspective into the illusion, which is trickier than just an image of a blank wall...the spell specifies “as visualized by you”, which implies at least some artisty is necessary.
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.This line always bothered me. Just about any figment breaks this rule at a small enough level. For example, an illusionary object blocks line of sight to anything behind it, else it'd be completely unbelievable. So once you make an illusionary cardboard box, if you place it over a crouching person, that person will basically seem to be a cardboard box. You can't make a red-painted monument green with a figment, but why not create an illusionary, monument-shaped film of green paint over it? There's no agreed-upon "common-sense" litmus test for this, which is why I usually have to house rule for illusions to make sense.
I think you are reading unintended limitations into that.
I read that as meaning if you want to make a person, look like a different person, use disguise self
so, if there is a "thing" inside the area of effect of the illusion, you can't make the illusion cling to that thing. You can make that person appear to be inside an illusory box... but you can't make an illusion of an ogre that the person can walk around inside and interact with things.
Any creature or moving part that operates outside of your control, the illusion doesn't automatically move to accommodate.
So, um, my original question? Kosher or not? I saw one vote for yes.
I see nothing about eating meat with dairy, shellfish, pork products, etc, so looks good to this gentile.
So, um, my original question? Kosher or not? I saw one vote for yes.
That happens sometimes - the first response is what most people agree with, so no one else bothers to say anything directly on topic :)
You're good to go, with the limitations mentioned. Blahpers perhaps disagrees with the limitations, but it's not entirely clear.
As illusion of walls with paintings of an empty intersection is probably not just kosher but parve. I'm not sure it would do a very good job of fooling anybody though. An illusion of some laundry hanging out to dry, a large wagon blocking the intersection, or something like that might be easier to get away with.
Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.This line always bothered me. Just about any figment breaks this rule at a small enough level. For example, an illusionary object blocks line of sight to anything behind it, else it'd be completely unbelievable. So once you make an illusionary cardboard box, if you place it over a crouching person, that person will basically seem to be a cardboard box. You can't make a red-painted monument green with a figment, but why not create an illusionary, monument-shaped film of green paint over it? There's no agreed-upon "common-sense" litmus test for this, which is why I usually have to house rule for illusions to make sense.well in a paizo published adventure path you get this:
Lastly, a silent image hides all of the doors, making them appear as part of tomb walls (DC 20 Will save to disbelieve if interacted with).** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Well, that's good enough for me. I'll interpret "can't make something seem to be something else" as permissively as reasonably possible, since that seems to be the intent.
Add my vote to the OP's "halal" column.
I think that hiding a door by putting a wall which looks like a wall in front of it is significantly different than hiding people by putting a wall which looks like an open area in front of them. One interesting side effect of something like this is that See Invisibility and Glitterdust wouldn't help.