Open-ended powers: illusions, cantrips, etc.

[RandomCasualty2]

And now you can't see part of the floor. Either you can block the floor, or you can not. The pit as such does not exist, and the illusion does not extend into the ground.

Block yes, but not superimpose. For instance, you can create a section on top of the floor, but you can't create something that exists in the same space as the floor.

Ok, so you can put a curtain in front of your sword. Can you put a curtain that looks exactly like an axe in front of it? Isn't this the exact line of reasoning that was already discussed?

You totally can put a picture of an axe there, but it looks like just that, a 2 dimensional picture of an axe, like you took a painting and put it over the area. Might fool someone at long range, but that's about it.

And strictly speaking that means you can not cast figments at all. Silent Image comes in 10ft cubes. Good look finding any such cube in a dungeon without an object in it. And of course your second guideline is utter bullshit. Presumably you can still modify the illusion. Allowing this, but not allowing it to follow anything simply does not work, if only because it is impossible to adjucate an argument. But even more so because allowing you to move your illusory blob to the left in an empty room, but not if someone else already moved to the left completely breaks immersion.

As far as the 10 ft cube, that's just a maximum size of the illusion. You can go smaller than that, because illusions can be anything or any size you want. You can even shape them. Not putting an illusion in the same spot as something else is actually fairly easy.

I'm not saying it can't walk the same path as someone, I'm just saying it doesn't walk the exact same path at the same time. I mean seriously this is a fucking turn based game. That's easy as shit to adjudicate. It doesn't move during anyone else's turn, period. Your fire elemental can totally follow someone, you just can't have it constantly superimpose itself over them and be fire elemental armor.

And that to me makes sense. If you have this image that's over someone that the wizard is constantly updating, there are going to be parts of the body sticking out here or there sometimes, when the wizard fails to mimic someone's movements exactly. Giving illusions a perfect reaction time like that is a total mistake and there's frankly no reason to do it unless you want to power them up.

Except of course if anything at all happens to exist where that wall is supposed to go. Tapestry? No can do. Chair? Nope. Kittens? Nope, no illusion for you. Fire? Sort of. Certainly no burning table. No modifying a corpse to look charred.

Right. you can create a charred corpse, you can't make an existing one look burned. That's the province of hallucinatory terrain, not silent image. Silent image will let you fill a room with stuff, but it won't create empty space. You can create an illusory floor to cover a pit, but you can't actually create a pit, because you can't create an illusion of "nothing there." Hallucinatory terrain by the way is a glamer, not a figment. That can totally do the shit you want.

But yeah, it's silent image, it's a first-fucking-level spell. What did you expect?

I mean seriously, Robby quoted the relevant passage at the second post of the thread. "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. " You need glamers for that shit. I don't see why this is so hard.

[Crissa]

In RC's world, illusions aren't even as cool as mundane costumery?

-Crissa

[PoliteNewb]

In RC's world, illusions aren't even as cool as mundane costumery?

-Crissa

Figments are not mundane costumery. Glamers are. Figments are more like mundane sets or props.

So, yeah, exchanging the word "figments" for "illusions", your statement is correct. Why is that a big deal? Because they're magic, they should be better than "just a mundane costume"? It's a first level spell...a high level guy using the Disguise skill SHOULD be able to do cooler stuff.

[Crissa]

Glamers can make things look like they're not there. Figments can't.

So either you can mask objects; and make fake bridges, closed doors, or swords into axes - or you can't: and can't actually make anything with a figment where some object (like air) might interact with it. Or figments are 2d surfaces, and therefore no one would ever believe them for a second unless they're a cyclops.

His suggestions are bizarre and nonsensical.

No one here is saying you can make an axe look like a sword with a figment.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

In RC's world, illusions aren't even as cool as mundane costumery?

This isn't "RC's world", this is the fucking rules of D&D.

Figments don't do that.

Seriously, the relevant quote from the rules is "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. "

Yes, figments don't disguise stuff. It's right there in the rules. Robby quoted it initially, I re-quoted it.

Now, whatever if you don't like that you can house rule it, but that's what the fucking rules say. You may not *like* that, but arguing about it not being part of the rules only makes you look stupid.

[Crissa]

RC, you're saying figments can't do anything.

It really is your argument here. No nuance. Apparently figments aren't opaque if there's an object behind them. And they aren't three dimensional themselves, else they'd have depth and shape, which you are asserting they do not have.

Either you can cover things up like what's-his-name and his stupid box; or you can't cover things up, in which situation figments don't actually do anything.





-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, you're saying figments can't do anything.

Apparently you haven't been reading what I've been saying.

I'm saying figments add things to a scene, they don't modify things.

You have a stone chamber with a chest and an orc.

A figment can:

• Add two more orcs to the room
• Block off part of the room with an illusionary wall.
• Put a wall of fire at the entrance to the room.

A figment cannot do the following:

• make the orc look like a lizard man
• Make the chest invisible.
• Make part of the floor invisible so it looks like there's a pit there.
• Add scorch marks to the chest and room so it looks like there was a fire there.

I really don't see what's so hard about that.

[virgil]

Hey look, a treasure chest, let's use silent image to create a tree stump, or a podium, or even a meditating statue over the chest. Even better, create a chest that looks exactly the same except scorched and 1cm larger in every dimension. The example is more obvious with something like cups where you can put one over the other. Where is the difference?

It's already established to be able to create the illusion of an attacking orc, with nary a word contrariwise that the illusionist can't make it react in real time to its environment so it can be more than a deaf and blind guard patrolling back-n-forth; and the illusionist can predict and understand his own movements better than anyone else, making the Matryoshka human move its arm when he moves his own a perfectly logical conclusion.

[RandomCasualty2]

Hey look, a treasure chest, let's use silent image to create a tree stump, or a podium, or even a meditating statue over the chest. Even better, create a chest that looks exactly the same except scorched and 1cm larger in every dimension. The example is more obvious with something like cups where you can put one over the other. Where is the difference?

Well we already know figments can't make something look like something else. This is where I logically make the ruling that you can't generate figments over something, treating it similar to conjuring a creature. You couldn't conjure an orc inside the same space occupied by a chest, could you? Then why are illusions different?

We aren't certain of exactly what happens when you try to put a figment and a creature in the same space, all we are certain of is that a figment cannot disguise things. Seriously, that's ironclad because it's right there in the rules, so any conclusion that permits that to happen is by definition a wrong conclusion.

The moment you are making any kind of ruling that allows a figment to make something seem to be something else, you have to full stop and change your ruling, because you are going against the RAW.

It's already established to be able to create the illusion of an attacking orc, with nary a word contrariwise that the illusionist can't make it react in real time to its environment so it can be more than a deaf and blind guard patrolling back-n-forth; and the illusionist can predict and understand his own movements better than anyone else, making the Matryoshka human move its arm when he moves his own a perfectly logical conclusion.

The rules say you can't, so you can't.

Why can't you use magic missile and auto-target someone's eyes? If it always hits what you target it at, it's a perfectly logical conclusion that it could precisely hit any vital area, isn't it?

Lets not play the selective realism game. Otherwise I'll say "well logically you got stabbed with a sword, you're dead. DAMN THE RULES! ARROW TO THE NECK BITCHES! "

Rules are rules. The rules say no. End of story.

[Crissa]

You're in crazy town, RC, stop with the crack smoking.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

You're in crazy town, RC, stop with the crack smoking.

Good to know that following the rules is crack smoking.

You're arguing that figments can disguise stuff, the rules explicitly say they cannot. This isn't even a matter of debate. Aside from your gut wanting figments to do that, there is zero evidence in the rules to support that. In fact the rules say explicitly the fucking opposite. The only way you will win this argument is if you can somehow prove that the passage in the rules that Robby and I quoted you does not exist, because it contradicts you completely.

You: I want to make an orc look like a lizard man using a figment.
Rules: Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.

Your argument fails to hold up to the most basic of logic. This a case of you saying A and the rules saying not A. I mean shit, are you a moron?

Stop being obtuse and just accept it.

[Kaelik]

RC, the moment you use Silent Image at all, you are making something look like something else. Because that's the fucking definition of a goddam illusion.

The only way what you are saying makes any sense is if you decide that figments are not actually illusions.

[Crissa]

If I cannot make a figment cup cover a stone, then how is it at all something to believe?

-Crissa

[Pixels]

The problem is that an illusion always disguises something as something else. A 20' x 20' room can be disguised as a 20' by 10' room by adding a wall to the middle or as a hive by adding honeycombs and giant bees. A human can be disguised as a tiefling by adding little horns and a cute devil tail. A chest can be disguised as a particularly large stalagmite, or a raised podium, or in a jutting section of wall, or by a really fat ogre sitting on it. What is the difference between creating an illusionary wall around the chest that looks like a bump in the rough-hewn wall and creating an illusionary wall tightly around the chest that looks like a chest with scorch marks?

Or say we have a glass window. Is putting a wall over the window disguising it? Is putting an orc in front of it disguising it? Is putting a second, illusionary layer of colored glass depicting St Cuthbert bludgeoning the faithful disguising it? The language is terribly ambiguous on what is and is not allowed.

[Orca]

A illusion not reacting to something as it should is its Achilles heel. Sure, you can cover up the human with a larger lizardman illusion, but the instant the human zigs and the lizardman zags you have a problem.

The illusionist can try to cover this up if he/she's concentrating on it, but this sounds like the sort of situation which is made for lots of extra saves by those watching it. And yes, I do think it would be harder to adjust an illusion like this than one where you have to make the illusory lizardman start bleeding when it's hit.

[Kaelik]

A illusion not reacting to something as it should is its Achilles heel. Sure, you can cover up the human with a larger lizardman illusion, but the instant the human zigs and the lizardman zags you have a problem.

The illusionist can try to cover this up if he/she's concentrating on it, but this sounds like the sort of situation which is made for lots of extra saves by those watching it. And yes, I do think it would be harder to adjust an illusion like this than one where you have to make the illusory lizardman start bleeding when it's hit.

I agree, figments should suck as disguises of people.

But if you feel like replacing a chest with a slightly different chest, or creating the illusion of a pit trap, those should be completely viable uses of silent image.

[RandomCasualty2]

You say figments can disguise things, the rules explicitly say they can't.

Now if you want to ignore the written rules and get a DM who will let you do that, that's up to you. I seriously don't know what else to say. You've seen the relevant paragraph, nobody has challenged it with anything else in the rules. All I can assume is that people have disliked what the rules say and decided to ignore them.

This has just gotten to the point of "I want figments to be able to do X, fuck the rules."

There's really nothing left to say here.

[Crissa]

Yes, since RC's version of figments explicitly don't do anything.

-Crissa

[LR]

In RC-land, this is impossible without a fourth level spell.

[Kaelik]

You say figments can disguise things, the rules explicitly say they can't.

Now if you want to ignore the written rules and get a DM who will let you do that, that's up to you. I seriously don't know what else to say. You've seen the relevant paragraph, nobody has challenged it with anything else in the rules. All I can assume is that people have disliked what the rules say and decided to ignore them.

This has just gotten to the point of "I want figments to be able to do X, fuck the rules."

There's really nothing left to say here.

RC. I agree, by the rules figments cannot disguise an empty room as an empty room with an orc in it. By the rules, it is impossible to cast Silent Image at all, and my entire D&D game comes screeching to a halt every time someone starts demanding that illusions be allowed to make something appear like something else. Because that's not what illusions are for.

Now RC, do you agree with me that it is impossible by the rules to cast Silent Image at all? Or am I going to have to start quoting that passage back at you until you admit that by the rules Silent Image never creates an image?

[Crissa]

If you had the glammer, it'd work from another angle. ^-^

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'm going to agree with Kaelik here (yes, I know, quiet you).

I am not disputing that the rules say what RC is claiming. But I am saying that RC is applying the ruling inconsistently (because if you add an illusion of a chest to a room where there was no chest, then you ARE in fact making something appear to be something else.)

I am saying that in this case, the rules don't make a lick of sense and RC isn't helping them make any more sense than they did before.

Do the rules say that you can't superimpose an image of a big stump over a chest? I'm going to say yes. But I'm going to say that's a stupid fucking sentence and have no issue with blacking it out of the book.

[RandomCasualty2]

Now RC, do you agree with me that it is impossible by the rules to cast Silent Image at all? Or am I going to have to start quoting that passage back at you until you admit that by the rules Silent Image never creates an image?

No, it's not impossible to cast it. It's just you cannot use it to do some of the things you want to do. Silent image effectively creates something, it does not modify, nor does it superimpose on things. Think of it as a summoning spell, only the summon isn't real.

Superimposing is not okay because at that point you're disguising something, not to mention no spells work that way anyway. Can you superimpose a summoned orc onto a chest? No of course not. So you can't do that with an illusion either. Illusions must be cast onto empty space. They can't engulf things, they can't superimpose. No more than your DM wouldn't let you conjure an umber hulk around a halfling and put it in the creature's stomach (at least I hope he wouldn't let you do that).

So what does silent image do? It creates a figment object, or a creature in empty space. Doing that does not make something look like something else, it merely blocks vision (which is okay).

You can create an obstructing wall (or other figment) between two points. That's fine, nothing is being disguised here, you're merely adding an illusionary object to the scene that blocks people's vision. You can create an additional book in an empty space in a bookshelf. You can create a fake dragon inside a room. You can fill an empty box with gold coins.

All of these entail adding things to empty space in a scene and are perfectly legal. The moment you try to fuck with occupied space or start creating enveloping illusions is when you get in glamer territory.

[Crissa]

But no space is truly empty. Why can't I create an empty axe and put my sword in it? A sheath? A cup over that rock? Etc?

Basically, you want it to be free-standing, but not actually do anything an object that is otherwise immaterial could do. Figments are not dispelled the moment something touches them!

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

But no space is truly empty.

Don't give me some bullshit "There are air molecules". As far as D&D is concerned, it's empty. I'd also consider aquatic squares to be "empty" as well. Only solid matter can stop it, similar to a summon spell.

Why can't I create an empty axe and put my sword in it?

Because the rules say that you can't use it to disguise stuff. As to why they say that, you'll have to ask the person who wrote them.

Basically, you want it to be free-standing, but not actually do anything an object that is otherwise immaterial could do. Figments are not dispelled the moment something touches them!

I would pretty much argue that the moment they envelop something for longer than a round or so they basically become transparent for a moment until the offending object is removed, because they're explicitly prevented from disguising things. Of course, that's a ruling the DM has to make. We're really not sure what happens when a figment tries to disguise an object, only that it can't happen. The ambiguity (and this part is arguable) happens to lie in what happens to the illusion itself.

The one thing we know for sure is that the disguising doesn't happen and that the illusion itself can't stop the object from entering. Therefore whatever happens, the illusion itself gives. The illusion could simply end, or it could be disrupted for a limited period of time. Another option could be that the illusion automatically moves itself so as not to impede the object. In my games I go with temporary disruption until the offending object is removed. But like I said, that's a vague point and one that a DM will have to decide for himself.