if i have my eyes closed when the spell goes off, does it affect me?
does that make me "sightless"?
As a biomedical engineer, I will tell you that closing your eyes is not the same as being sightless. Your eyes and brain still receive and process visual stimuli, it is just blunted by your eyelids.
Personally I would give a +2 circumstance bonus to the will save, but that's purely a houserule.
Although I understand your point -Byakko and _Ozy_- I think that when the spell reads "School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]" and "Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray." it means that if you can not see the pattern, you can not be affected by the spell.
Yes, we can argue if you use your senses to perceive the illusions or rather they are put there by magic and so on, I just consider the most simple interpretation and apply it. You can not see it, you can not be fooled by it. I really doubt that you can use a Silent Image on a blind target. If you think otherwise, I have no other reason than "This spell creates the visual illusion of ..." so I understand that without vision, you are immune to it.
If your interpretation is that illusions are set into the target's mind bypassing its senses my suggestion is that you double check the Illusion School, where it says:
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.
and
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see... (although it affects the mind of the target, is not something personally put there).
I have no more arguments that support my point. Going further into this discussion will only end in circles, I suggest to press the FAQ button and move forward.
I like your explanation, makes sense and fits neatly with the rules. Also color spray is a first level spell, it should be easy to avoid.
Figments are not 'mental illusions', they do not manipulate the mind.
They "deceive the senses", which certainly doesn't imply someone is actually really seeing something.
So of course they are really seeing the illusion...
Clearly if they're really seeing it then it's not deceiving their senses. That's a straight contradiction in terms.
It really does work fine if you treat it as a hallucination-like effect that follows sense-causality the way a hallucination in real life does.
I'm fine with "If you save, your eyes were closed".
I'm also fine with "There is a magical area of effect" and "There is a visible color spray" which if viewed outside the area of effect has no magical effect. I'm willing to accept, creatures with color blindness or darkvision are affected, if in the area of effect.
Is that everything?
? Are you serious? The point of an illusion is to trick them into thinking that an image represents a real object or creature when it is only an illusion.
If your eyes are accurately reporting some image that's really floating out there, then you're senses aren't being deceived. They're telling you the truth: that there's an image floating out there. Maybe you're making a stupid call about what it is, but your senses aren't being deceived.
I mean, if an illusion is nothing more than putting up a an actual "real" picture of something or sound of something that interacts with your eyes or ears, then it's 100% textbook evocation - creating energy (colored light to the eyes, sound-waves to the ears). If it's not creating energy in some form or other, then by definition it can't really be reported by sight or hearing.
I believe this whole arguments falls under the GM's domain. If you want a world of magic where color spray is an actually manifested spray of color, it HAS to have light or it couldn't be seen. Then treat blindness as synonymous to sightless, let the Darkness spell block the color spray, and move on.
If your DM treats all mind affecting effects as only existing in the mind(s) of the target(s), then any creature that could see and knows sight could be affected, as the "colors" only exist in their mind. Those that save do not see any colors or patterns if the spell is not also a [light] spell -- in that world a creature born blind or sightless would not even comprehend the illusion and is immune, but anyone who had or once had the ability to see could be affected, and a darkness spell has no effect on the spells ability to mess with your mind.
Pick a path, stick with it.
I think you're really reading this the wrong way. The deception is that the illusion is supposed to be real, not that you think there is an image there but there isn't.
Well, I'm not sure what to say other than that I object to reading "deceive the senses" and "create a false sensation" as "create an actual sensation that is reported accurately by the senses, which then tries to deceive the creature viewing it into thinking it represents a real thing".
If that were true, then being 'tricked' by the illusion would mean that you would think there was an image of a dragon there, not a real dragon.
I have no idea why an illusion that deceives a creature's senses would be unable to trick that creature into believing that what it thinks it sees is real. You seem to be saying that if an illusion is tricking someone's senses, then it can't be tricking them into believing what their tricked senses are telling them. Which seems rather peculiar.
I find it's quite useful to reference illusion off the idea of what could be called a collective hallucination-object. By definition, "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception. Hallucinations are vivid, substantial, and are seen to be located in external objective space." The area of effect of an illusion spell is the area within which you can deceive the senses of creatures into thinking they see something, in the sense that an illusion seems to occupy real space as far as those perceiving it are concerned.
It produces a sensation. If you can not have that sensation, then you are immune.
This still seems to support the claim that 'sightless' in this case means 'without functional eyes/vision'. An ooze definitely cannot have a sensation of sight and nobody would argue colour spray effects oozes. However, a man standing in a dark room, even magically dark, still has the sensation of sight -- there's just not much to see... Until you produce a sensation for him.
Emphasis mine. Anything can possibly create light, but only those with the [Light] descriptor create meaningful light.
Light: Spells that create significant amounts of light or attack darkness effects should have the light descriptor. Giving a spell the light descriptor indicates whether a spell like darkness is high enough level counter or dispel it.
yet there are spells that state that they generate light and how much without having the light descriptor. One example is the fire shield spell.
This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee. The flames also protect you from either cold-based or fire-based attacks, depending on if you choose cool or warm flames for your fire shield.
Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15). This damage is either cold damage (if you choose a chill shield) or fire damage (if you choose a warm shield). If the attacker has spell resistance, it applies to this effect. Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you.
When casting this spell, you appear to immolate yourself, but the flames are thin and wispy, increasing the light level within 10 feet by one step, up to normal light. The color of the flames is blue or green if the chill shield is cast, violet or red if the warm shield is employed. The special powers of each version are as follows.
Chill Shield: The flames are cool to the touch. You take only half damage from fire-based attacks. If such an attack allows a Reflex save for half damage, you take no damage on a successful saving throw.
Warm Shield: The flames are warm to the touch. You take only half damage from cold-based attacks. If such an attack allows a Reflex save for half damage, you take no damage on a successful saving throw.
Oh God, this discussion. I used to imagine a spray of sparkling, twinkling and dazzling colors shooting from one's hands when color spray was used, stunning the opposition with fabulousness. Now, since I see there's an argument that the spell might be a thing seen but produces no light, all I can imagine are ribbons and streamers shooting out of your hand making that stupid party horn noise, causing orcs to foam at the mouth from the birthday surprise.
Actually, that might be way better. In fact, now I'm imaging the latter above, but with a hip hop air horn.
I guess whenever I make that heavens Oracle, I need to boot up a sound board at the table.
Oh God, this discussion. I used to imagine a spray of sparkling, twinkling and dazzling colors shooting from one's hands when color spray was used, stunning the opposition with fabulousness. Now, since I see there's an argument that the spell might be a thing seen but produces no light, all I can imagine are ribbons and streamers shooting out of your hand making that stupid party horn noise, causing orcs to foam at the mouth from the birthday surprise.
Actually, that might be way better. In fact, now I'm imaging the latter above, but with a hip hop air horn.
I guess whenever I make that heavens Oracle, I need to boot up a sound board at the table.
Even better (warning: loud sound)
That's actually the sound I meant. I'd like to think rainbow pattern is that, but 22 times.
@ ozy
I am confused as to what your point is, color spray does require a spell resistance check.
Air horn would be a separate spell. 4 intel or less, they spook and run away. More intel. they become enraged.
As for color spray...
Sees darkness, sees darkness, COLOR SPRAY!!!
I guess it would come down to how they react with others. For instance, if you were to pass the save and still be able to see the image, then I would imagine it is some form of light or at least something for light to bounce off of.
If passing the save means that nothing is there for you to see, than there really isn't anything there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...what the hell did I walk into?
@Blakmane:
Sight is not a sensation, is a sense. A sense from which you get visual sensations.So there could be cases that you have the sense, but can't have the sensation. Example: I can not see with my eyes closed. Do I have the visual sense? Yes. Do I get visual sensations with my eyes closed? No.
So you know, this is completely incorrect. When you have your eyes closed you still have visual sensation. Try poking the side of your eye when they are closed and you are in complete darkness: you'll see you can still produce visual sensation just fine. In fact, many of the completely blind people I have worked with still have visual sensation, oddly enough, due to spontaneous retinal activity. One of the most complained about aspects of Retinitis Pigmentosa are the bring flashes of visual sensation that sweep across their lack-of-vision.
Is this a science argument about Pathfinder
am I in a goddamn science argument about Pathfinder
Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be.
Since pathfinder rules aren't 100% comprehensive, science provides a good tool to answer stuff that isn't covered and maintain at least a semblance of verisimilitude.
That is, unless you're specifically running in a world where science doesn't actually work. My guess is that would be a very wacky place.
I'm just going to disagree that scientific discussions have anything at all to do with rules in pathfinder, unless we are talking logic for the statements. Adding science into the equation seriously just convolutes the issue beyond measure.
Unless making a complete mess of things is the point.
We are parsing rules that have a semblance of what happens in real life, not enforcing real world standards on the mechanics like would happen in a simulationist game rule set. Science pretty much means nothing beyond what the rules tell us is important in this respect. At least for this game system.
Is this a science argument about Pathfinder
am I in a g%$$+*n science argument about Pathfinder
+?????
(I believe is what you meant)
AM I BEING CORRECTED IN PUNCTUATION DEPLOYMENT IN A GODDAMN SCIENCE ARGUMENT ABOUT PATHFINDER
And here I was thinking I was being helpful .-.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AM I BEING CORRECTED IN PUNCTUATION DEPLOYMENT IN A G@*#&#N SCIENCE ARGUMENT ABOUT PATHFINDER
+!!!!??!?!?!
(Maybe?)
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, let me say to the forumites... As the GM who brought this discussion up with my players; I'm so, so sorry for being the cause for this can of worms. Also, not that it means much but... This is intriguing.
I'm not looking for an official ruling, just interested in your opinion. There is a conversation about spells and the "light" descriptor in the rules forum, and it is crazy, but aside from the topic of that discussion I am curious as to what you think is a good way to deal with spells that do not have the light descriptor and their effect on spells that have the "Dark" descriptor. Such as, does a Lighting Bolt, a third level spell, counter, even temporarily, the Darkness spell, a second level spell, revealing the caster's position, or does it remain unseen because it does not have the Light descriptor and therefore cannot counter Darkness spells?Only spells with the Light descriptor counter spells with the Darkness descriptor. That means a lightning bolt or fireball shot into an area of magic darkness does nothing to illuminate the darkness... but it still does damage as normal, of course.
This is one of several ways that magical darkness is different than normal darkness. And that makes magical darkness more interesting.
Same with Ghost Sound? You want to call those 'magic vibrations' instead of sound waves?
Go for it.
That doesn't change the fact that the sound from Ghost sound acts like sound waves, and the image from Silent Image acts like photons.
Why? Because the rules depend on things acting like they do in our world unless they say otherwise. That's why you can hear a muffled Ghost Sound through a door even though the spell has no line of effect. Because it's real sound imitating a false condition (marching elephants, orc war band, etc...).
Otherwise the DM has to decide "Hey, since these are 'magic vibrations', do they even go through a solid object like a door? If so, how much of a perception penalty is there to hear them"
So, what's your answer? Do these magic vibrations go through a door?
Do those 'magic light beams' bounce of mirrors? Get refracted by water or glass? Just like photons? Or are they different.
You may think this is nit-picking, but if any of your answers suggest that these 'magic light rays' don't act like photons, and these 'magic vibrations' don't act light sound waves, then you have an instant and trivial way to defeat illusions.
So, since 'magic light rays' must act light photons, and 'magic vibrations' must act like sound waves, why the heck would you bother calling them something new?
Thanks for answering my previous question, it did clarify your point of view for me.
You are raising some interesting ideas, maybe you can spot illusions by looking at a mirror, kind of like spotting a vampire, or maybe the same delusion that makes you think you saw something makes you also see a false reflection (but a camera won't detect anything). You aren't going to find a deeper understanding within the rules, we are in GM fiat territory, but it is fun to speculate on the possibilities. I vaguely recall a superstition where if you peer through a hole in a stone, where the hole had formed naturally in a river, you could see through fairy magic (glamour) and see how things truly are. I would like Pathfinder magic a lot more if it had idiosyncrasies like that.
It seems that the argument can be made based on which understanding of "sightless" is used.
With that in mind, regarding light levels and the ability to see, I've seen the text for patterns quoted, but everyone seems to gloss over one particular part.
"Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells."
This brings me back to the term "sightless". Color Spray is either dependent on its victims physically seeing the illusion, or mentally being able to imagine the illusion. What we know, Color Spray creates an image that others can see that occupies a 15-foot cone. Cool, understood so far. Color Spray also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in the 15-foot cone. So far, sight doesn't matter, at least not until we bring in the "sightless" clause that is specific to Color Spray. Does this refer to the physical ability to see, which would seem to ignore the mind-affecting aspect, or does this refer to the ability for the subject to imagine the illusion they are caught in? The fact that "blind" is not referenced, leads me towards the latter.
Quite frankly, the spell is much cleaner and has less wonky bits if the blind condition isn't used in place of "sightless".
*Edit - Color Spray also specifically requires you to be caught in the 15-foot cone to be affected, so only seeing it from outside of the 15-foot cone does nothing.