If you cast figment to create a visual illusion, it can be seen by much farther than the 5-foot cube that it contains. For example, if I created an illusion of a piano, it could be seen from possibly hundreds of feet away. Viewers would not need to be in the space to be able to witness it. This is evidenced clearly by the statement that the illusion looks crude at 15 feet, indicating that viewers can see it from even farther out.
Likewise, if the figment was that of a self-playing piano, the crude notes it generates would carry on the wind, possibly being able to be heard at significant distances.
We've now established that, though the illusion is limited to the 5-foot cube, the effects of the illusion are not. So if I cast figment to create the illusion of a torch, campfire, or bonfire, it would light up the surrounding area and could potentially be seen from great distances under appropriate conditions (such when placed on a mountaintop at night), correct?
If you cast figment to create a visual illusion, it can be seen by much farther than the 5-foot cube that it contains.
...
We've now established that, though the illusion is limited to the 5-foot cube, the effects of the illusion are not.
It is strange how you have stated that twice, but with no actual rules support. Just presented it as though it was a fact stated in the spell description.
The spell description doesn't say how far away the illusion can be seen or otherwise perceived. The only distances listed are the 30 foot range limit of the spell and the 15 foot distance where the illusion appears to be a crude object.
For example, if I created an illusion of a piano, it could be seen from possibly hundreds of feet away. ... This is evidenced clearly by the statement that the illusion looks crude at 15 feet, indicating that viewers can see it from even farther out.
In addition to hundreds of feet, do you know what else is farther than 15 feet? 30 feet.
If anything, from a rules-legal perspective, I would put the distance that you can observe the illusion from to also be the 30 foot range from the caster that the spell effect is. Because the rules for affecting a target with a spell state that all of: the caster, the origin point of the spell, and the targets, must be in the listed range.
If you cast figment to create a visual illusion, it can be seen by much farther than the 5-foot cube that it contains.
...
We've now established that, though the illusion is limited to the 5-foot cube, the effects of the illusion are not.
It is strange how you have stated that twice, but with no actual rules support. Just presented it as though it was a fact stated in the spell description.
The spell description doesn't say how far away the illusion can be seen or otherwise perceived. The only distances listed are the 30 foot range limit of the spell and the 15 foot distance where the illusion appears to be a crude object.
For example, if I created an illusion of a piano, it could be seen from possibly hundreds of feet away. ... This is evidenced clearly by the statement that the illusion looks crude at 15 feet, indicating that viewers can see it from even farther out.In addition to hundreds of feet, do you know what else is farther than 15 feet? 30 feet.
If anything, from a rules-legal perspective, I would put the distance that you can observe the illusion from to also be the 30 foot range from the caster that the spell effect is. Because the rules for affecting a target with a spell state that all of: the caster, the origin point of the spell, and the targets, must be in the listed range.
I've always interpreted spell range as only mattering during the casting of a spell, or for ongoing spells with mobile effects. It never once occurred to me that it would have any impact on a static, immobile spell effect.
Your interpretation would make the spell borderline useless I fear.
I read it as it creates the illusion of an object or effect, and that object or effect can be seen at the same distances a non-illusory object or effect of the same kind could be seen.
In addition to hundreds of feet, do you know what else is farther than 15 feet? 30 feet.
Mildly interesting side story related to this:
several years ago I was called to jury duty for a case involving a sawed off shotgun. The law is that a shotgun is legal only if the length of the barrel is more than 18 inches. The prosecution very deliberately pointed out that the original length of the shotgun when manufactured is 22 inches, and that this shotgun was clearly shorter than that and still had saw mark damage from where the end of the barrel had been cut off. However, the defendant stated that he never actually measured the length of the barrel - especially not in the proper manner (which is to measure the inside bore length, not the outside visible housing length - and the prosecution did not contest that.
And then in closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney literally told us that, "The barrel is originally 22 inches, and the defendant could see that the barrel had been shortened. So we know that he was aware that the barrel was less than 18 inches."
When we were in deliberations I mentioned that there are a lot of numbers less than 22 and larger than 18 - a few of them are even integers.
Your interpretation would make the spell borderline useless I fear.
That is very possible. It is also possible that your interpretation would be seen as being too powerful.
Ultimately I expect that this is going to be ruled on on a case-by-case basis according to the specifics of the scene and the spell usage and the needs of the plot. And having both interpretations here in this one thread will make that more obvious.
So there isn't a general answer that I can post here that can be used for ChatGPT to use when pressed into service as a GM. The GM is going to have to make their own call.
"Illusory light" is the kind of thing that is a GM call. It's just not covered by the rules, so far as I can tell.
But, here's my take- just the way I would run it. The various light spells that do provide illumination aren't illusions. This a Watsonian explanation, but if illusions provided illumination, I'd expect at least something to do that. But, obviously, you can make an illusion of a campfire, and it's clearly evident in the spell that even a cantrip illusion can be seen from a distance. My approach would be that a custom illusion can give off illusory "light" that can be seen, but which only illuinates surfaces within its area. So, for Figment, you could make an illusory to campfire, and it would be visible at a great distance in the night. But everything outside its square would remain dark. It might be a little surreal, and if you got close, it would be obviously fake. If you get fancy and bust out Illusory Object, that would light up a much bigger area, but still be visible from the same distance. That would provide a handy in-world reason for why people just create real light.
In any case, you don't go blind when you cast Invisibility, so illusions aren't interacting with conventional optics and sight normally.
Light would need to leave the cube, otherwise no one could perceive the visual illusion unless they were inside the cube.
An illusion that doesn't interact with light is not an illusion at all.
Light would need to leave the cube, otherwise no one could perceive the visual illusion unless they were inside the cube.
An illusion that doesn't interact with light is not an illusion at all.
I think you're conflating illusions with holograms. (Or possibly figments. I need to check the remaster rules around illusions to see if that category still exists.) According to the "illusion" trait this cantrip has in Pathbuilder, illusions are "typically involving false sensory stimuli." A lot of people think of illusions as holograms and they might have acted like them in PF1, but many illusions are instead tricking the "brain" (using the term loosely since mindless creatures aren't immune to illusions) into seeing something which isn't there. It's closer to neuron manipulation than holograms, so light need not enter into it. By that logic, a conservative ruling is that only creatures within 30 feet could perceive it. (Not sure if that's 30 feet from the caster or from the illusion.)
In a few minutes I can bust out my Player Core and shed some light.
illusions, in the magical game mechanic sense, are not real in our world. creating holograms in our world require immense set up and technology that uses light and energy. Holograms can kinda work as a "it is kinda like this," but trying to mechanically define spells by real world analogies is a short road to arguments and hurt feelings.
Instead, you really have to start from a place of mechanical balance and expectation for what one cantrip can do. If there is another cantrip with very specific and defined limits, than another cantrip really should not be able to do the same thing AND a bunch of other things too. While the "sustained" duration is a significant limit, I think this sentence of the description of the Illusion trait makes the total limits more clear:
"Magic with the illusion trait creates false sensory stimuli." (page 301 of player core 1)
So someone might think the illusion is creating light, but it is not actually creating any light at all, and interacting with the world around the magical campfire, and realizing you can't see anything around it would be the kind of thing that should make a creature aware that something is off/have a chance to make a save.
At the same time, I would rule as a GM that illusions would be visible from more than 30ft out because otherwise the spell would be too bad to be true and vastly limit the way players would want to use it. Additionally, the Illusion trait calls out illusions that are mental illusions will say so in the spell description, which is not figment, so figment isn't an illusion dependent upon an audience to exist, and so the distance of the observer to the illusion isn't relevant to the spell's range. But I would also allow people to make saves with any initial seek actions they might take from however far away when they see a camp fire that doesn't seem to light up anything around it.
In a few minutes I can bust out my Player Core and shed some light.
Self doxxing: Captain Morgan is apparently a Nephilim or a Bright Fetchling.
Checked player core. Page 301 is all that really expands on general illusionn rules, but there's nothing salient to this topic that we haven't already covered. What's interesting is that figment of a campfire wouldn't just fail to shed light outside of its square, it doesn't even shed light within its square.
Picture this: after you cast the figment campfire into pitch darkness, a goblin successfully Sneaks into that square. To an observer without darkvision, nothing would change in that square. The figment wasn't programmed to show a goblin, nor does the observer's brain know there should be a goblin there. There's no interaction happening with the figment and the world around it.
Taking it a step further, the figment would still be just as visible in total darkness regardless of whether it was a fire or just a rock. What you are creating is essentially just a computer monitor with the brightness turned all the way down so it doesn't illuminate the room around it.
In a few minutes I can bust out my Player Core and shed some light.Self doxxing: Captain Morgan is apparently a Nephilim or a Bright Fetchling.
Quiet, you.
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves generated inside the area be able to carry farther than the area's confines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves carry farther than the area.
There are no light waves being generated. The observer's senses are being manipulated to think there are light waves being generated. This is Professor X, not Dazzler.
This was a fun thread though.
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves carry farther than the area.There are no light waves being generated. The observer's senses are being manipulated to think there are light waves being generated. This is Professor X, not Dazzler.
This was a fun thread though.
So illusions are now spells the most powerful spells ever because they can can directly affect the minds of everyone within, potentially miles, regardless of their level, with no saves or rolls whatsoever?
Okaayyy...
So illusions are now spells the most powerful spells ever because they can can directly affect the minds of everyone within, potentially miles, regardless of their level, with no saves or rolls whatsoever?
No, not everyone within miles. Only those within 30 feet. Because that is the range of the spell.
That is what we are trying to point out.
And there are rolls involved. Remember that the affected creatures get a chance to disbelieve any time that they interact with the illusion.
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves carry farther than the area.There are no light waves being generated. The observer's senses are being manipulated to think there are light waves being generated. This is Professor X, not Dazzler.
This was a fun thread though.
So illusions are now spells the most powerful spells ever because they can can directly affect the minds of everyone within, potentially miles, regardless of their level, with no saves or rolls whatsoever?
Okaayyy...
Yeah dawg, welcome to PF2. Illusions have always been gangbusters. Illusory Object and Illusory Creature are the best 1st and 2nd rank spells in the game by a country mile. Figment is too limited to be that potent, but the fact that you need to spend actions to get to roll against illusions by default makes them the most reliable control effects in the game.
Or are you telling me that if I cast Ignition it is invisible from further than the range of the spell?
Ignition isn't an illusion.
And if you read upthread, my stance on the topic is that it is going to be ruled on a case-by-case basis depending on the scenario and the needs of the plot. Not consistently in a manner that can be applied from one campaign to another or even necessarily from one adventuring day to another.
What makes you feel that range of a spell, ANY spell, means that the effects of that spell aren't perceivable beyond that range?
With a lack of rules defining a difference between Illusion and other schools in that matter, they are 100% the same regarding this.
A lack of rules doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct - no matter what that interpretation is. A lack of rules means that the interpretation is going to be different in different scenarios or with different players.
What I do know is that an illusion is not going to cause game mechanics effects more than what it gives in the spell description.
So if you make an illusion of a campfire, I can't say how far away people can see the fire from - that is dependent on the GM and the table playing. What I can say is that the illusory light from the campfire isn't going to illuminate an object or creature hidden by concealment caused by the lack of actual light.
How far away you can see the illusion feels trickier than whether it sheds light to me. I thought for a second that the spell's range would be the answer, especially when I considered how long the range on spells like Illusory Object and Creature are. But I discharged that idea because Illusory Disguise only has a 30 foot range, and having it do nothing against creature who see you from more than 30 feet away is too bad to be true.
But there isn't a lack of rules. Don't twist my words.
There are distinct rules of what Range is and what Area of Effect is.
To be clear, when I say that "A lack of rules does not mean that your interpretation is correct", those are my words, not a restatement of yours.
A lack of rules regarding how far away an illusion can be seen is not proof that an illusion can be seen from miles away. It also is not proof that it can only be seen from 30 feet away.
A lack of rules saying that illusion spells behave differently from other spells regarding line of sight to the effect does not prove that an illusion of a torch can't be seen coming from around a corner before the torch illusion itself becomes visible. It is not proof that an illusion of a torch does or does not create a light pattern on a wall outside of the 5 foot area cube that the Figment spell states.
Those are all things that the GM and the table are going to have to decide on.
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves carry farther than the area.There are no light waves being generated. The observer's senses are being manipulated to think there are light waves being generated. This is Professor X, not Dazzler.
First off Figment is not a mental illusion it is a visual/auditory effect. It creates light and sound. So things like darkness or silence would stop it from having effect.
Even if you disbelieve a visual illusion there is enough of something still there that it might provide some concealment (though probably not for this small cantrip)
It doesn't have the effect of a light spell and illuminate the area in any significant way. This is purely a game balance concession - so there is a point to a separate light spell. Probably a poor choice but that is traditionally how D20 games has done this.
The result is that there is some light generated, just not enough to be significantly bright to see anything much else by.
What i gave with the picture as I said was a simplistic way of putting it in.
But what you are creating is "Light" in area of effect of the area of effect of the Figment.
Similarily to how a torch produces 20+20 radius of light, the figment would produce 5ft cube (or whatever the area of effect is) Light same way as a torch is conatined within the 40ft radius that it applies.
It is contained within the area of effect. Hence visible with line of sight, but not visible through corners.
Similarily, if you had a torch lit, the light wouldn't pass a corner 45ft away from it and be visible from there, but would probably be visible if one had straight line of sight to it from quite further up ahead, this "Light" you produce, doesn't pass more than the area of effect.
If you want the Light to be visible through the corner, then by definition you make the Light effect surpass the area of effect, which is not allowed.
I am not advocating that light from illusion spells would go through walls or around corners.
First off Figment is not a mental illusion it is a visual/auditory effect. It creates light and sound. So things like darkness or silence would stop it from having effect.
Are you indicating that dwarves are immune to (visual) figment whilst in the dark?
Or are you telling me that if I cast Ignition it is invisible from further than the range of the spell?
It is good to see you again, honored teacher.
It thrills me to no end to see your skills at work.
No, but you are advocating that the Effect of light will go beyond the Area of effect of the spell.
Certainly the light's effects could not extend farther than the spell's range (that is, it could only illuminate a small area), but the light from the spell's effect could be seen from a great distance (that is, observers who are themselves in the dark).
Elsewise you could light up the whole world with a cantrip not intended for such a purpose.
First off Figment is not a mental illusion it is a visual/auditory effect. It creates light and sound. So things like darkness or silence would stop it from having effect.Are you indicating that dwarves are immune to (visual) figment whilst in the dark?
Well dwarves have Darkvision so it is more complex than that. But no it is not me that is saying that it is the visual trait which says
A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see itIn full darkness a Human would be unable to perceive a visual Figment - though he could hear any sound component. A Dwarf with Darkvsion would be able to see a visual Figment.
Light would need to leave the cube, otherwise no one could perceive the visual illusion unless they were inside the cube.
An illusion that doesn't interact with light is not an illusion at all.
Reflected light needs to leave the cube for anyone to see it. What you're asking for is more ambiguous: illusion emitted light.
Options for handling illusion-emitted light include:
- Illusions can't emit light. They still reflect it just fine, but an illusion of a torch is very unconvincing in the dark.
- Illusions can emit light, to reasonable degrees. Use various low-level light source rules.
- Illusions can emit arbitrary amounts of light. Ask players to not create illusions of miniature suns.
- Something complicated.
Which one will depend on the GM.
I'm in the complicated camp, because I would homebrew "illusory light" as something loosely based on video game rendering. Illusions only run reflection on any emitted light within their sphere of influence, and beyond that, the illusion-emitted light stops reflecting off of things, although it can be seen since that's not reflection. And if the illusion isn't a torch or something that gives off its own light, there's no difference. That's entirely homebrew, though.
Disclaimer: This is all academic. Everyone but Ravingdork agrees figment can't be used to illuminate more than a five foot square, and illuminating a single five foot square is pretty much never going to be relevant. We all agree you can't just hack your way out of learning the light cantrip. But this still fun.
First off Figment is not a mental illusion it is a visual/auditory effect. It creates light and sound. So things like darkness or silence would stop it from having effect.
What's interesting is that the auditory trait mentions sound but the visual trait does not mention light:
action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed
only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise
produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the
auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This
applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined
by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still
affects targets who can’t hear it (such as deaf targets) as long
as the effect itself makes sound.
visual (trait) A visual effect can affect only creatures that can
see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as
determined by the GM.
And as Ravingdork alludes to, darkvision means that not all sight relies on light at all. And while I'm aware figment doesn't have the mental trait, it does have the illusion trait, which means the effect is still providing "false sensory stimuli." Light isn't false, even if it shows something that isn't there. An optical illusion or a mirage are still relying on light, but that light is tricking our brains.
So what I'm starting to think here is that illusions aren't generating light on the normal visual spectrum, but a wavelength which our brains can't consciously register. Something closer to infrared. But creatures like the froghemoth see on a different spectrum, so the illusions don't fool them.
Disclaimer: This is all academic. Everyone but Ravingdork agrees figment can't be used to illuminate more than a five foot square, and illuminating a single five foot square is pretty much never going to be relevant. We all agree you can't just hack your way out of learning the light cantrip. But this still fun.
Personally, I'd probably rule that it can illuminate things out to the spell range (30 feet), but that it would not stand up to ANY magical darkness effects (which would always overwhelm the illusion) nor could it create any other mechanical effects beyond visibility (such as blinding someone or burning a light-sensitive creature).
Disclaimer: This is all academic. Everyone but Ravingdork agrees figment can't be used to illuminate more than a five foot square, and illuminating a single five foot square is pretty much never going to be relevant. We all agree you can't just hack your way out of learning the light cantrip. But this still fun.Personally, I'd probably rule that it can illuminate things out to the spell range (30 feet), but that it would not stand up to ANY magical darkness effects (which would always overwhelm the illusion) nor could it create any other mechanical effects beyond visibility (such as blinding someone or burning a light-sensitive creature).
That one is confusing to me, because that's the range from you that the illusion can be. If I make a torch at the edge of that, is it only casting light in one direction? Or are you making a separate thirty-foot range around the torch?
That seems way too complicated to me lol.
Visual is Visual. Plain english of "affects creatures that can see it" translates to me that if I can see it, regardless of "how" (be it darkvision, low-light, or simply there existing good enough light conditions to see it) it affects me, and if i can't, it doesn't.
As far as emitting light or not, I think I'm going to change my viewpoint from "it generates light constrained by the area of effect" to "it cannot generate light" due to actually missing the Light trait.
Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area, and can counteract magical darkness. You must usually target darkness magic with your light magic directly to counteract the darkness, but some light spells automatically attempt to counteract darkness.(although I'm still not certain about that since the humble Torch also lacks the Light trait for some reason... as if it cannot illuminate non-magical darkness lol)
But eventually, a spell missing a Trait I find it more important than mundane items missing the Traits.
Oh, it's definitely more complicated than it needs to be, when all you really need to say is "it's magic dude." But if you want to justify figment not emitting light outside of "that is what light is for" then it's kinda fun to think about how that works. I'm the type of person who needs Battle Medicine to be a shot of adrenaline to justify why you can't use it more than once a day on any given target.
Personally, I'd probably rule that it can illuminate things out to the spell range (30 feet), but that it would not stand up to ANY magical darkness effects (which would always overwhelm the illusion) nor could it create any other mechanical effects beyond visibility (such as blinding someone or burning a light-sensitive creature).
To be clear, are you saying yes or no to the illusion of a torch or campfire being able to mechanically remove the concealed condition and therefore the hidden condition of someone hiding in the dark?
That one is confusing to me, because that's the range from you that the illusion can be. If I make a torch at the edge of that, is it only casting light in one direction? Or are you making a separate thirty-foot range around the torch?
That's a fair point. Spell ranges are often measured from the caster, rather than the effect, aren't they?
Perhaps a more sensible ruling would be that it can can't illuminate an area larger than an equivalently leveled light spell.
I don't think this would step on the toes of light to much since it can do all sorts of other things like...
- Attach the light to a creature, causing it to float near that creature as it moves.
- Can be Sustained to move the light up to 60 feet at a time (whereas figment's light source is stationary to the original cube)
- Lasts all day instead of Sustain 10 minutes
- Can be used in conjunction with other light spells to create complex signals
- Can be used to overcome spells with the Darkness trait.
- Can potentially be used against light sensitive creatures.
That's how'd I'd do it anyways. I'm not necessarily arguing that, that's the way it is as written.
Personally, I'd probably rule that it can illuminate things out to the spell range (30 feet), but that it would not stand up to ANY magical darkness effects (which would always overwhelm the illusion) nor could it create any other mechanical effects beyond visibility (such as blinding someone or burning a light-sensitive creature).To be clear, are you saying yes or no to the illusion of a torch or campfire being able to mechanically remove the concealed condition and therefore the hidden condition of someone hiding in the dark?
I think that if a GM rules that figment can emit light at all, then yes, it should also remove mundane darkness-based concealment.
I think that if a GM rules that figment can emit light at all, then yes, it should also remove mundane darkness-based concealment.
Hopefully by spelling that out you realize why you are getting such a large amount of pushback on the idea that Figment can create any light at all then.
Because removing conditions like that is way more than what the Figment cantrip lists as its mechanical abilities.
I think that if a GM rules that figment can emit light at all, then yes, it should also remove mundane darkness-based concealment.Hopefully by spelling that out you realize why you are getting such a large amount of pushback on the idea that Figment can create any light at all then.
Because removing conditions like that is way more than what the Figment cantrip lists as its mechanical abilities.
Figment doesn't really list any effects at all; by and large it appears to be left up to the GM to determine what the limits of its capabilities are.
it does have the illusion trait, which means the effect is still providing "false sensory stimuli."
It is interesting that the definition of illusion has changed from the CRB. It used to say typically and in another place usually involves false sensory stimuli. Now it doesn't
it does have the illusion trait, which means the effect is still providing "false sensory stimuli."It is interesting that the definition of illusion has changed from the CRB. It used to say typically and in another place usually involves false sensory stimuli. Now it doesn't.
Indeed.
Illusion school description
Illusions create the semblance of something real, fooling the eyes, ears, and other senses. Depending on how the illusion is perceived, it might have the auditory or visual traits, and some also have the mental trait.
Disbelieving Illusions (Sidebar)
Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).
If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed.
Player Core glossary:
illusion (trait)
Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli. 301
Illusions (Other Spell Traits)
Magic with the illusion trait creates false sensory stimuli. Sometimes illusions allow creatures a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks, Interacts, or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or save the GM chooses) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (usually via a Will save). If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would prove it’s not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed.
GM Core glossary:
illusion (trait)
Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli.
Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean it's affecting the mind; if it created a source of magic that persisted in the world and tricked the senses, then that would be an external sensory stimuli (which would be false, because it is not what it seems), not an internal one.
Player Core rules that I am seeing:
illusion (trait) Effects and magic items with this trait involve false sensory stimuli.
Magic with the illusion trait creates false sensory stimuli.
Sometimes illusions allow creatures a chance to disbelieve
the spell, which lets the creature ignore the spell if it
succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature
Seeks, Interacts, or otherwise spends actions to engage with
the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check
(or another check or save the GM chooses) to the caster’s
spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s
description for disbelieving the effect (usually via a Will save).
If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would
prove it’s not what it seems, the creature might know that an
illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without
successfully disbelieving it. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes
it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which
might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed.