Really, it's up to the DM to decide exactly how he wants to play the "glowing runes" thing. Personally, I think it's silly. The DM has a lot of leeway on this.
What to make of it in PFS is anybody's guess.
I'd suggest that the erstwhile Bob the Arcane Trickster place himself in a spot where he has line of sight to the illusion, but the guards don't have line of sight to him. Problem solved!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Funny how we have different interpretations. In all my games over the last 15+ years, illusions were always "we do this in prep then agrro the enemy into our illusion trap" instead of "I'm in combat, I want to make an illusion and they can't help but assume there was always a wall there right?".
What, they've never seen anyone cast a wall of iron before ?
Illusions spell are subject to spellcraft anyway. If you use them in combat it is hard to fool anyone.
If you cast an illusion spell in combat, it is usually obvious that you just cast a spell and anything that pops into existence at that time can be assumed to be a magical creation of some kind. The only thing that would be uncertain to somebody untrained in Spellcraft would be whether you created the illusion of a wall or an actual wall.
|
If you cast an illusion spell in combat, it is usually obvious that you just cast a spell and anything that pops into existence at that time can be assumed to be a magical creation of some kind. The only thing that would be uncertain to somebody untrained in Spellcraft would be whether you created the illusion of a wall or an actual wall.
One might argue, that most people who have encountered such magic would be more likely to assume that it's an illusion rather than the real thing, given that wall spells are mostly mid level spells compared to low level illusions that could mimic a wall.
There are way fewer casters that can actually summon a wall of stone than can create the illusion of a wall, and most individuals experience will likely be with the illusion variety, so they should probably be suspicious of it at least.
|
If you cast an illusion spell in combat, it is usually obvious that you just cast a spell and anything that pops into existence at that time can be assumed to be a magical creation of some kind. The only thing that would be uncertain to somebody untrained in Spellcraft would be whether you created the illusion of a wall or an actual wall.
If you get into those sorts of rulings - then there are tons of ways to game the system.
Ex: I cast Silent Image of a tiny speck and at the same time drop my previous Silent Image which is covering up a bottomless pit between us. Your Spellcraft check lets you "know" that it's just an illusion, so you charge me and automatically fall into the totally real bottomless pit and die. etc. (There are many cleverer ways to mess with people if Spellcraft checks let you "know" that it's an illusion.)
If you cast an illusion spell in combat, it is usually obvious that you just cast a spell and anything that pops into existence at that time can be assumed to be a magical creation of some kind. The only thing that would be uncertain to somebody untrained in Spellcraft would be whether you created the illusion of a wall or an actual wall.
If you get into those sorts of rulings - then there are tons of ways to game the system.
Ex: I cast Silent Image of a tiny speck and at the same time drop my previous Silent Image which is covering up a bottomless pit between us. Your Spellcraft check lets you "know" that it's just an illusion, so you charge me and automatically fall into the totally real bottomless pit and die. etc. (There are many cleverer ways to mess with people if Spellcraft checks let you "know" that it's an illusion.)
You can't do both at the same time. Dismissing a spell is standard action.
Thanks to _Ozy :)
I didn't know Silent Image was concentration for the duration.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one so this is how it goes.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one.
1. You stop concentrating, which would be noticeable. This makes whatever is covering the pit disappear.
2. You cast the 2nd spell. The tiny speck is created, which is noticable by the spellcraft check, even if the GM allows you to create an illusion that is hard to see. At worst the party gets a perception check to notice the really small speck that just came into existence. Chances are that someone makes the check. It's a free action to speak, even when it is not your turn. Now we know the speck is not real, and neither was that rug.
Even if nobody makes the perception check, that just means nobody sees the speck, but if the GM allows for things that small to be created whoever made the spellcraft would know that, if that is how magic works in that version of Fantasyland.
Well, you can also create an illusion of literally nothing.
That said, the entire strategy relies too much on the opponents doing exactly what you need them to do.
I don't know about all that. The magic chapter actually gives illusions certain qualities, which "nothing" would not have.
You can't create "nothing"
The word "create" makes that pretty much impossible.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.
If the guards have line of sight to you they should see you casting just due to that. The manisfestion is not even needed. There is also the issue of casting being done in a strong voice so they will also hear you.
But to answer the question about whether the manifestation will reveal your position, that is up to the GM. Maybe they appear over your head like runes. Maybe they just appear within 30 feet of you. All of that is left up to the GM.
Well, you can also create an illusion of literally nothing.
That said, the entire strategy relies too much on the opponents doing exactly what you need them to do.
I don't know about all that. The magic chapter actually gives illusions certain qualities, which "nothing" would not have.
You can't create "nothing"
The word "create" makes that pretty much impossible.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.*shrug* Ok, create a false illusion of a 0.00000000001% increase in the light level. You could detect that with a DC1000 perception check perhaps.
Good enough?
Nope. The game has set light levels. Anything outside of those light levels is GM Fiat.
Basically without the GM being really really lenient that illusion will be noticable.
Since you need line of sight/effect to create the illusion that greatly reduces the utility of illusions out of combat, but ok.If the guards have line of sight to you they should see you casting just due to that. The manisfestion is not even needed. There is also the issue of casting being done in a strong voice so they will also hear you.
You can be out of their line of sight, while the illusion is in it, but if you are in their line of the new FAQ might not be your friend. As I pointed out in the other topic the FAQ does not specifically say the manifestation has to be visual, but they also did not give the Illusion school a rules exception.
Personally as a GM I am ignoring the manifestation rule, but if you are in PFS, or you have a by the book GM you will have to ask him how those manifestations work until the PDT provides more clarity.
Create the illusion of a one of your hairs turning a slightly darker shade of brown?
Are you trying to say that there is no way to create an illusion of something nearly impossible to notice? I'm not convinced you have to actually create an image of anything at all.
Spell that alter you such as disguise self(also illusion based) or not the same as spells like silent image which actually create a new illusion.
I quoted the rule that says figments create false sensations. You can't "create" and have nothing. You definitely can't create "nothing" and still have false sensations.
If you don't create anything then there is no illusion, which goes directly against the spells and the magic chapter.
The rules don't say you can cast the spell and have nothing happen. That is not an option that you are given, and certainly against the intended use of the spells.
Air is something. I create the illusion of air. I create the illusion of gnat crawling on the ground. I create the illusion of a sand grain lying among the grass.
What's the DC to notice?
Air is not a sensation. You need to be more specific. How is it interacting with the creature?
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
But let's say you go as small a bacteria, assuming your character knows what they look like, and the GM plays along and gives it a 200 DC to be noticed, that must means that in that game world/reality the spell allows it so there is no reason for the caster to not know you created something that is possible to not be noticed.
Another example is to create something at really low volume and place it as far away from the enemy as possible so they don't notice.
In my above example the pit was seen in stop 1.
The "nothing" would be created on step 2.
So basically the caster showed his opponents a pit he was hiding and then created something they can not perceive.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one so this is how it goes.An illusionist with a school familar can transfer control of an illusion requiring concentration to the familiar as a move action, allowing them to cast a spell in the same round without losing the first illusion.
A bard with the Spellsong feat can use bardic performance to sustain a concentration spell.
I'm only accounting for the normal rules. I know Pathfinder has a rules exception for almost everything.
I am unfamiliar(no pun intended) with being able to pass control over to a familiar as move action. Where is that rule/feat/class feature lcoated at?
|
|
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
Not if it has full cover behind a blade of grass. Or under your foot. Or beneath your backpack. Etc.
Not if it has full cover behind a blade of grass. Or under your foot. Or beneath your backpack. Etc.
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
That would be circumstantial situation which has nothing to do with the actual perception penalty of the item itself. That modifier of the item itself is still a -16. Other modifiers such as distance, cover, and so on affect the final DC, but not the base penalty due to size.
PS: Also since this is spell "under your foot" would block line of effect for the spell to be targeted there anyway.
Well, you can also create an illusion of literally nothing.
That said, the entire strategy relies too much on the opponents doing exactly what you need them to do.
I don't know about all that. The magic chapter actually gives illusions certain qualities, which "nothing" would not have.
You can't create "nothing"
The word "create" makes that pretty much impossible.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.well - first you have to understand and conceptualize what "nothing" is... then create an illusion of it. The problem philosophically is your creation of nothing is something always more than nothing, for nothing is less than itself, thus you imagine something that is near nothing.
It's probably easier to create an illusion of emptyness - like an empty room with dust and some cobwebs...
But when nothing is never created because creating nothing can't be done then it ceases to exist before it even begins. Therefore the spell fizzles at the moment it is cast because its requirements were not met.
that is illogical and relies on your interpretation of what "create" means. If something is there than creating an illusion of nothingness over it is both noticeable and different, and the sensations must be modified.But when nothing is never created because creating nothing can't be done then it ceases to exist before it even begins. Therefore the spell fizzles at the moment it is cast because its requirements were not met.Well, you can also create an illusion of literally nothing.
That said, the entire strategy relies too much on the opponents doing exactly what you need them to do.
I don't know about all that. The magic chapter actually gives illusions certain qualities, which "nothing" would not have.
You can't create "nothing"
The word "create" makes that pretty much impossible.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.well - first you have to understand and conceptualize what "nothing" is... then create an illusion of it. The problem philosophically is your creation of nothing is something always more than nothing, for nothing is less than itself, thus you imagine something that is near nothing.
It's probably easier to create an illusion of emptyness - like an empty room with dust and some cobwebs...
You brought up philosophy which is also based on opinion to a large extent. I was just following your lead. :)
Smallest size is Fine, not Diminutive.
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
Correct, but the modifier is still -16.
|
|
Correct, but the modifier is still -16.Smallest size is Fine, not Diminutive.
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
But it could be an illusion of an invisible fine stationary creature - giving it a total of +56 to stealth.
But it could be an illusion of an invisible fine stationary creature - giving it a total of +56 to stealth.Correct, but the modifier is still -16.Smallest size is Fine, not Diminutive.
A gnat or a sand grain has is diminutive since that is the smallest size we have in PF. That is a -16 penalty to be noticed. If you are close enough to be seen casting the spell someone can probably make the DC to notice the really small thing you just created.
The illusion has to be visual according to silent image. If we start to go into pedantic uses of the rules then it just turns into a rules lawyer battle, but going back to where this started there is not much the illusion rules can do with this new manifestation FAQ in place. It makes them weaker than they already are, and that is even if you say they dont give away your location.
It's a rule i wont be using in my actual games, even if those in PFS are just going to have to be more annoyed with it.
|
Object sizes are smaller than creature sizes of the same description. You are limiting where limits are not set. You should be able to illusion up a grain of sand just as you could illusion a house. They are things which exist, and illusions are unbound from strict size mechanics. Silent image could generate a lit match(with no temperature component), an ant or a spoon in your pocket.
Who said the grain of sand was illegal?
|
|
Fine, which is 6" or less and objects being about a 1/4th(if I remember correctly) the size of their creature size can be grain of sand size... but it is a rather large difference between measuring in CM and NM and most wouldn't consider that legal. Thus, my thinking. If I was wrong, then my clarification was not needed. But still true. ^.^