The Gaming Den

What does this mean?

SRD, figments wrote:Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.

Exactly what sort of things does that mean you can/can't do with silent/major image, or other figments?

Does this mean that you can't do the illusion of a hole in a wall, because a wall is 'something' or that you can, because a hole is not 'something'

It's a bitch, but this actually explains it decently enough:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... [br]Here's the short version: Figments can cover up, but not build in.

Example: let's say that there is a large wooden door with an ornate handle (that stick out 1 foot).
You CANNOT make the wood door look like an iron door.
You CAN put the illusion of an iron door in front of the wood door.

You CANNOT make the handle 'disappear'.
You CAN make an exact image of the door slightly in front of original door, without a handle.
You CAN put the illusion of a (giant python)/acid/spikes/flames on the handle.

You CANNOT erase the floor in front of the door.
You CAN create the image of a trap door in front of the door.
You CAN remake the floor (slightly above the original floor) with a pit (that has illusory depth).

To use your example, you may remake the wall as an illusion slightly in front of the original wall with a hole in it (similar to how you would add a painting of a hole in a wall), but you may not add a hole to existing wall.

There is no minimum size to a figment, it can theoretically be so thin that it literally touches the surface of the original object. So I can make the door look (and with the higher level illusions feel) like an iron door, but only by layering the iron door on top of it.

A Glamer makes something seem like something else. Which in the case of the wood door to iron door means essentially fuck all. But if you wanted to make it look like a metal grating door that had holes in it, you'd need a glamer.

Basically figments are in almost all cases far more powerful than glamers, but invisibility is a glamer and that is one of the few things that figments can't do. Figments cover whole huge areas and everything in them, but they can only add, they cannot subtract. Glamers target objects and creatures and can add or subtract things from those targets.

-Username17

So... I can use a Glamer to make a see-through hole in the door to look through, even if I can't get through it?

NoDot at [unixtime wrote:1200284729[/unixtime]]So... I can use a Glamer to make a see-through hole in the door to look through, even if I can't get through it?

You can make a see-though person, even though you can't get through them. Whether you can do it with a door would depend on the targeting mechanics of the spell in question.

But I've been led to believe that an invisible patch on a door is invisible in both directions.

Oh mighty god Ess-Ar-Dee! Vomit forth your secrets! with a bit of editing...

Glamers: (spell levels as by Wizard)

1 Disguise Self
1 Magic Aura
2 Blur
2 Invisibility
2 Magic Mouth
2 Misdirection
2 Phantom Trap
2 Silence
3 Displacement
3 Invisibility Sphere
4 Hallucinatory Terrain
4 Invisibility, Greater
4 Zone of Silence
5 False Vision
5 Mirage Arcana
5 Seeming
6 Mislead
6 Veil
7 Invisibility, Mass
8 Screen


Figments: (spell levels as by Wizard)

0 Ghost Sound
1 Silent Image
1 Ventriloquism
2 Minor Image
2 Mirror Image
3 Major Image
4 Illusory Wall
5 Persistent Image
6 Mislead
6 Permanent Image
6 Programmed Image

Making a door Invisible (it targets objects too!) is always hilarious, especially when the monsters on the other side try to charge you. It's a good trick for a BBEG too, especially if your players are a little trigger-happy.

Making the door or tower shield invisible is always a good call for full cover while maintaining line of sight .

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1200123230[/unixtime]]Also, does anyone think this list of spells that etc etc has become the biggest draw of gamers to TGD?
Sure got my attention.

I'm still rehashing Frank's list in the original post.

There's some genius selections there - and I'm glad he worked outside of the core-only selections.

I'm extremely intrigued with some old, overlooked spells too ... like Lahm's Finger Darts from BoVD.

Figments: Can provide a static image of something not there. If you put your hand behind it, you know it's 'painted' to be not there, because you see the figment, not your hand.

Glamours: Can warp the light around a target, therefore you can make an image that 'sees' through an object.

-Crissa

Gingerbread at [unixtime wrote:1200347877[/unixtime]]
There's some genius selections there - and I'm glad he worked outside of the core-only selections.

I'm extremely intrigued with some old, overlooked spells too ... like Lahm's Finger Darts from BoVD.

The downside of non-core derived material is that in order to understand what the new rule does, one must own the book.
For instance many players don't have BoVD, and as a result have no idea what that spell is.
I've addressed the issue and so have others here but it's up to Frank and Keith to stop referencing such things.

However, it's a good thing to 'emulate' the ability, feat, or spell by making a new one that does roughly the same effect. Copying without direct referencing does not violate WOTC copyright law.. hell, they do it all the time.

I don't have a problem with them referencing non-core stuff. It makes my non-core books that little bit more useful for me. Besides, that way, when I use it and a DM asks "Where is that from?" I can say "Oh, Races of Rabbitfucking" or whatever.

It seems rather smug.

There's nothing wrong with referencing non-core material. Take the stick out of your ass.

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1200523419[/unixtime]]It seems rather smug.

How so? I'm really baffled by this. Maybe if the books were referenced before their release, in a "You can use this option, if you're awesome enough to have a special pre-release edition of the book like me." manner, but they're not.

I agree that referencing noncore material without source seems somewhat smug, because it seemingly assumes the reader had nothing better to do than read (for example) the spell lists of each sourcebook WotC printed. OTOH, a thing as simple as linking the Consolidated Lists page would solve it better than adding a source at each mention of noncore element; but they didn't even do this (though, to be fair, I'm not sure it existed when the Tomes were written).

And my backside sits confortably now - no need for personal insults.

The thing is that every noncore spell on this list in the first post has its source in parenthesis.

Oops - seemingly I self-inserted the Tome series in the discussion, which didn't do this ...

Surgo at [unixtime wrote:1200595164[/unixtime]]The thing is that every noncore spell on this list in the first post has its source in parenthesis.

You just don't get it, do you?

To be fair, I don't either. If you don't have a book, it's no good knowing what spells in it do, since you won't be able to use them anyway, unless one of a)one'll buy the book for a couple powerful spells (in which case they're retarded) and b)you are advocating flat copyright violation in copy-and-paste, is true.

I don't understand how a list of "the following spells are pretty cool, I have marked the ones that are not available for free" is smug or offensive in any way. Also, it was intended to be useful, so there are bonus points for helpfulness applied.

Also, I was given the Spell Compendium as a gift. Afterwards, I highlighted all of the spells that were useful to me in it (many of which are in this list). I fail to see what the freaking issue is.

What I 'get' is that you're complaining about something that isn't even a problem.

Bigode at [unixtime wrote:1200599200[/unixtime]]To be fair, I don't either. If you don't have a book, it's no good knowing what spells in it do, since you won't be able to use them anyway, unless one of a)one'll buy the book for a couple powerful spells (in which case they're retarded) and b)you are advocating flat copyright violation in copy-and-paste, is true.

Exactly.

That, and gamers such as myself literally living on the edge of being broke (I have a few hundred US dollars in my name left, most of it gone to bills) don't really appreciate free game material referencing sources that must either be purchased for $30 apiece for, as Bigode stated "a couple powerful spells", or pirated.
So, rather than... for instance, in Tome material, reference a smattering of non-SRD spells in the Sphere selection.... one could provide a reference to a core alternative in addition to the ideal feat, spell, class, race, etc.

SunTzu: How does your free book help gamers without one? They can't see your highlights.

edit: my bad, Bigode didn't write 'a couple of' -__-

Um, I was pointing out that this list was helpful to an individual such as myself without any monetary attachment. For instance, a compiled list of <core> and <non-core> material was helpful (and not boasting, bragging, or smug) to a person who was given a <non-core> book in order to better understand it and extract it's gooey goodness.

Someone else helped make a list, and I found it helpful. I thank the creators, that is all.

sigma999 wrote:That, and gamers such as myself literally living on the edge of being broke (I have a few hundred US dollars in my name left, most of it gone to bills) don't really appreciate free game material referencing sources that must either be purchased for $30 apiece for, as Bigode stated "a couple powerful spells", or pirated.

What the fuck?

You can have two possible lists of "spells that fvcking kill people". One of these will have only core spells. One of these will have the exact same list of core spells, but also non-core spells listed as well (with proper citations). It is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain which one of these lists is better. What is the god damn problem?