Sorry for the lame title, but I didn't know how to put it in short, nor what to search for to find relevant answers.
Well, using Silent Image and any of its more powerful version (Minor, Major, Permanent, etc.) we all agree that we can create the image, for example, of a bunch of spikes over a floor or along a wall.
But can we instead make holes into the floor, possibly with things inside them, or make a flat wall appear like it's a jail with dead people inside, and stuff like that? (That's what I meant by "negative 3D"... 2D that looks like it has depth.)
|
I'd say yes and no. No, you can't make an illusion that extends beyond the area of effect, BUT you can make an illusion of an anamorphosis-type image. It's like those paintings that depict a corridor, but are flat.
Keep in mind that the illusion is essentially static. In other words, like that painting, the illusion of the corridor is pretty good when viewed from the correct angle, but if you were to move to one side, it wouldn't look quite right. Even an illusion that moves can't compensate as it has no way of adjusting itself to the viewer's various positions. Maybe if you had an illusion that you were controlling, YOU could adjust it if the viewer moves about.
Also, depending on the GM, something like an anamorphosis-type image may require some sort of skill check, whether a spellcraft check, or profession art or something. But that's really up to the GM.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
One of the problems is that generally the image-type spells can't make an illusion of nothing where there is actually something. So you can't disappear a wall and make it look like an open area.
I agree with Captain Zoom that you could make a perspective trick, but that would only work from a specific viewing angle much like real world tricks of that nature.
I haven't checked, but higher level effects like hallucinatory terrain and mirage arcana may be able to do what you want.
|
|
I'm pretty much with Captain Zoom.
But like much of the rulings on image spells - other than a few simple uses - EXPECT TABLE VARIATION. (I have found that if a GM seems iffy on something I want to try - I suggest a bluff check. My gnome sorceror has maxxed out bluff with a charisma of 20, so that's not generally an issue.)
|
Figment spells can never be used to make something look like something it's not. That's entirely in the realm of glamers. This is a VERY common mistake made by players both new and veteran and is why Silent Image is hailed as one of the best 1st level spells in the game, because people are doing things with it that they simply can't.In fact, yesterday at a Society game, our wizard used Silent Image to create a statue (which is fine) and then hid inside it, thereby using the spell to disguise himself as a statue which a figment cannot be used for, he needed a glamer for that.
So making the floor look like it's actually a pit cannot be done with an figment spell.
|
|
In fact, yesterday at a Society game, our wizard used Silent Image to create a statue (which is fine) and then hid inside it, thereby using the spell to disguise himself as a statue which a figment cannot be used for, he needed a glamer for that.
That'd work so long as he made sure to make the statue hollow inside so that he could stand inside it.
By your logic silent image could never block anyone's line of sight of anything else.
|
|
In fact, yesterday at a Society game, our wizard used Silent Image to create a statue (which is fine) and then hid inside it, thereby using the spell to disguise himself as a statue which a figment cannot be used for, he needed a glamer for that.That'd work so long as he made sure to make the statue hollow inside so that he could stand inside it.
By your logic silent image could never block anyone's line of sight of anything else.
It's the intent of spells use that is important, Figments and Glamers are unique that way. If you create an image with the sole purpose of disguising yourself you've just casted a figment as a glamer and is an illegal use of the spell.
You could hide behind it, using the normal hide rules but you could never hide inside it as a way of disguising yourself as a statue, that is a glamer's job and should never be crossed over, to avoid invalidating glamers.
Sure. Check this out: URL
The problem is they'll crash if they try to walk through a illusionary corridor you made on a wall. They could think it's a wall of force, but stuff like that should probably allow a 2nd save, like steping over a illusionay precipice and not falling. If they fail the save, I'd say they think they are falling for 1 round, while they are in fact trenbling on the floor.
A good illusion is to make a group of creatures think they were swallowed whole, each by a different monster. They will be blind and individually caught in their own illusion. Even if one breaks free, it will be hard hard to shake the others off the illusion, since they could think the shaking is from the monster that swallowed them.
|
|
In fact, yesterday at a Society game, our wizard used Silent Image to create a statue (which is fine) and then hid inside it, thereby using the spell to disguise himself as a statue which a figment cannot be used for, he needed a glamer for that.That'd work so long as he made sure to make the statue hollow inside so that he could stand inside it.
By your logic silent image could never block anyone's line of sight of anything else.
It's the intent of spells use that is important, Figments and Glamers are unique that way. If you create an image with the sole purpose of disguising yourself you've just casted a figment as a glamer and is an illegal use of the spell.
You could hide behind it, using the normal hide rules but you could never hide inside it as a way of disguising yourself as a statue, that is a glamer's job and should never be crossed over, to avoid invalidating glamers.
So basically - you're saying that I'm right by RAW, but you think that I'm wrong by RAI, and RAI trumps RAW?
Because there's no doubt you could do it by RAW. (Though much more limited than similar glamers - and taking concentration to keep up.)
(I disagree with you about RAI by the way.)
Of note - for anyone but yourself, hiding someone inside of something with Silent Image would have the issue that they'd need to pass their save or believe it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that the illusion is essentially static. In other words, like that painting, the illusion of the corridor is pretty good when viewed from the correct angle, but if you were to move to one side, it wouldn't look quite right.
Maybe, if it's just one person, then the illusion could change to the point of view of that one person, if the illusion can be changed. If it were a psionic "illusion" then it would function for all points of view, as the illusion this time is inside each persons mind.
Figment spells can never be used to make something look like something it's not. That's entirely in the realm of glamers.
In fact, yesterday at a Society game, our wizard used Silent Image to create a statue (which is fine) and then hid inside it, thereby using the spell to disguise himself as a statue which a figment cannot be used for, he needed a glamer for that.
To maintain the logic of illusions an physics inside the game, I see no problem with him hiding inside the statue, even if it's not RAW. Maybe you could consider that glamers adapt themself to the movement of whatever they are "changing", like a Hag disguised as a beautiful woman, and that illusions do not adapt, in the same way as glammers do, that is. So, in the statue case, the wizard would not be able to move. If it was a glammer spell, maybe he would and the statue would move too.
|
|
So basically - you're saying that I'm right by RAW, but you think that I'm wrong by RAI, and RAI trumps RAW?
eh? I never said anything about RAI vs RAW. I did use the word "intent" so I can see the confusion I suppose. I meant intent of the caster not the developers. If the caster is intending to use the spell to perform the function of a glamer than it is not a legal casting (by RAW or RAI, if that matters)
A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
Bolded text spells it out pretty clearly.
Also there was a 4 part blog written by Skip Williams sometime ago that laid out exactly how illusions work that emphasizes just what I'm saying here. I can try to dig that up and link it if you'd like?
|
|
The wizard in question wasn't trying to make it seem that he WAS a statue. He was making it seem that there was a hollow statue there, and he happened to be hiding inside of it. There's no issue there.
As I said before - the disadvantage is that it wouldn't work well on an ally. Since the statue would appear to be there for everyone, the hidden character would have to pass their own save or be trapped by the hollow statue. But the caster himself KNOWS it isn't real and so requires no save.
|
|
There is literally no other purpose to hollowing out the inside of an illusion other than to overlay the illusion onto something else, to disguise it as the illusion. This is simply not a legal use of the spell.
I understand you disagree and won't see it my way and I respect that, just as I won't see it yours and we both are welcome to judge it how we see fit at our own tables as GM's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A figment cannot make something seem be something else. It won't move with the thing, allow them to pass for someone else or any of that.
A figment can certainly grant concealment though, which is what the wizard was doing.
|
|
There is literally no other purpose to hollowing out the inside of an illusion other than to overlay the illusion onto something else, to disguise it as the illusion. This is simply not a legal use of the spell.
Yes it is. As Dave Justus points out - you simply can't have the statue move with you convincingly. (Though you actually can have it move when concentrating.)
But you do confirm my point about expecting table variation. Many people simply don't want the image spells to be as versitile as they are.
|
|
It's very true. The open ended nature of the spell tends to allow for a very large amount of table variation. Unseen Servant, and Prestidigitation have the same problem as they largely boil down to what the GM will allow and what they won't. In the hands of a strict GM like myself they are balanced spells on par with other 1st level spells. In the hands of lenient GM's they are much more useful since they rival the power of spells many levels above them. It all depends on how the GM prefers to play his table. So as always, check with your GM.
Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't able to submit messages...
After figments and glamers were mentioned, I looked them up, and yes, it looks like what I wanted is the work of glamers, like Mirage Arcana:
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.
So, a wall can look like it isn't there, and as if there is a corridor going somewhere instead, effectively giving a 3D impression, in theory.
You could hide behind it, using the normal hide rules but you could never hide inside it as a way of disguising yourself as a statue, that is a glamer's job and should never be crossed over, to avoid invalidating glamers.
In this one I think the "disguise" part needs to be better defined. In the previous post you said he hid inside, and as long as it's hiding I don't get what's wrong with it. Leave behind the statue for a moment and imagine he made the image of a simple 10 ft. cube wooden box. Couldn't he hide inside that? The illusion has no physical barriers preventing that, and as long as he stays within the cube creatures outside shouldn't be able to see him, nor can he see what's outside. What would prevent it?
Same with the statue, assuming he can stay within the borders of the illusion, just as if he was inside a physical statue. Unless he meant to do something else, I don't get why he couldn't. The illusionary statue doesn't need to have its inside hollowed, anyone who puts his head in it won't be able to see past its shape anyway.I don’t allow casters to create convincing perspective games with figment spells, since the logical end of that path is illusionists who use Silent Image to put an occulus rift bubble around the head of an enemy (or, heck, all enemies in the area of effect!) and edit its field of vision however they like.
Well, even if the faux 3D effect could be produced, that wouldn't be possible anyway... it's true that the caster can move the image produced, but how would he move it in flawless concert with how a creature moves its head (which, at the slightest movement can get out of the oculus rift's screen)? It'd be similar to mimicking a creature's movements as if to make her believe she's in front of a mirror... you can't predict how it'll move.