Open-ended powers: illusions, cantrips, etc.

[Crissa]

The rules don't say you can't obscure objects. Which is what you're saying it can't do.

If it can't obscure and object or intersect with any solid object, then in no case will a figment even touch the floor. You can't disguise a 20' room as a 10' one because your wall can't touch the sides!

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

The rules don't say you can't obscure objects.

You can obscure objects by virtue of blocking someone's sight.

If it can't obscure and object or intersect with any solid object, then in no case will a figment even touch the floor. You can't disguise a 20' room as a 10' one because your wall can't touch the sides!

It doesn't technically "touch" the floor, because it has no physical characteristics, but it ends at the space right before the floor begins, which appears to touch it and is generally close enough.

[virgil]

The rules don't say you can't obscure objects.

You can obscure objects by virtue of blocking someone's sight.

That is stupid and nonsensical. If a wall can obscure, then an illusory house can too. Therefore a cup or a bell can cap the treasure chest, and we can make this cup/bell be in any shape/colour we want. If you can't create a bell shaped like a treasure chest that rests over other things, then you can't create a chimney or other circular wall (entry-less tower?), then you can't create a wall. Your line of logic leads to a spell that cannot do anything.

[RandomCasualty2]

That is stupid and nonsensical. If a wall can obscure, then an illusory house can too. Therefore a cup or a bell can cap the treasure chest, and we can make this cup/bell be in any shape/colour we want. If you can't create a bell shaped like a treasure chest that rests over other things, then you can't create a chimney or other circular wall (entry-less tower?), then you can't create a wall. Your line of logic leads to a spell that cannot do anything.

I already told you what the spell can do, and nothing wasn't it.

As for nonsensical, well you're talking about magic here. Why can magic missile only target creatures and not objects? Who the fuck knows, it's magic. I can only tell you how it works, not why it works that way.

[Murtak]

As for nonsensical, well you're talking about magic here. Why can magic missile only target creatures and not objects? Who the fuck knows, it's magic. I can only tell you how it works, not why it works that way.

You can't, that is your problem. You can not present a rule that works the way you claim it does. "Nonsensical" is not used to describe the effect of the spell, it is used to describe your interpretation of the rules.

For example you say that you can not create an illusion where another creature or object exists. Fair enough. "Creature" and "object" are well-defined DnD terms, no confusion there (well, except for Crissa). You clarify that you wish to distinguish between the possible area of the spell and the actual spell effects, which can be smaller than the former and may move around in the former. Again, fair enough. But then you say that creatures may retroactively move into the spell effect and thus gain, for example, concealment but it is impossible for the caster to use this moving, concealing illusion to actually conceal a moving target. You give the example of the wizard not possibly being able to coordinate the illusions movement with the target's movement, thus arms sticking out, etc. But you totally neglect that this explanation fails to hold up when we actually just wish to create an opaque box around an enemy and keep him from interaction with it. Or that we might not wish to conceal a dwarf in a human suit but in a Gelatinous Cube suit.

In short, your rules don't prevent the results you don't want to happen and your common sense explanation fails to hold up.



P.S.: As for "what do you expect, it's a level 1 spell" - Permanent Image is level 6 and has the same issues.

[RandomCasualty2]

You can't, that is your problem. You can not present a rule that works the way you claim it does. "Nonsensical" is not used to describe the effect of the spell, it is used to describe your interpretation of the rules.

Well we know that figments can't disguise things. That much is in the rules. Am I trying to figure out what that means? Yes. Am I trying to effectively make shit up to avoid breaking the rules? Absolutely.

But that's a heck of a lot closer to the rules than the "fuck it just ignore rules I don't like" system.

You're right nothing says you can't put illusions superimposed on objects, but we do know that you cannot make objects look to be something else with them. Further, no spell effect lets you conjure crap superimposed over objects anyway. You can't summon an orc that exists halfway inside a chest, so I don't really see why illusions could.

But then you say that creatures may retroactively move into the spell effect and thus gain, for example, concealment but it is impossible for the caster to use this moving, concealing illusion to actually conceal a moving target.

Honestly I'm thinking it's probably just not possible at all for the illusion to "contain" a creature or object. That is any two points on the illusion can't form a line that intersects with something else that isn't part of the illusion. So no illusion suits at all.

You could design a moving wall that you stayed behind, but that's about it.

And like I said, what happens when an object and a figment get superimposed is not known. We know that the figment can't change make the object look like something else, but we don't actually know what happens to the figment. That's the point where it depends on what DM you play under.

But the whole figment suit to disguise yourself does not work. The PHB explicitly says you can't do that. Nobody is really sure what happens if you try it, but we do know it doesn't work. Whether that entails the illusion getting dispelled, the illusion fading out momentarily or the universe collapsing in a giant divide by zero error, I can't tell you. I seriously don't know. I just know that whatever happens, if you try to use a figment to disguise something, it won't work. The rest of what I've said is my personal explanation as to why that's so, but there are plenty of other valid ways you can ensure that figments don't do that while following the rules too.

The important thing to remember is that figments can't make disguises. Any ruling that you make has to ensure that that is true. I don't propose that my rulings are the one and true right way. All I'm saying is that figment disguises will fail for one way or another.

[Murtak]

So why don't you just say "a figment collapses if a creature or object moves into it (or vice-versa)" and be done with it? That is at least a clear rule (though contrary to what you said earlier).

[RandomCasualty2]

So why don't you just say "a figment collapses if a creature or object moves into it (or vice-versa)" and be done with it? That is at least a clear rule (though contrary to what you said earlier).

Like I said, I'm not trying to sell people on my personal rulings for what happens when someone moves into a figment. I'm just trying to make the point that you can't use figments to disguise things, because it contradicts the rules.

If people can agree that you can't create shit like pit traps or lizard man body skins for people using silent image, then I'll be happy. What happens when figment and object/creature get contained within each other isn't really well defined, we just know that the end result doesn't result in the object or creature being disguised.

[Kaelik]

RC Goddam it read the rules.

Figments can't disguise things! Read the Rules. You are totally wrong. You can not ever use Silent Image to obscure sight, because every time you obscure sight, or create an illusion in an empty space, or make an illusory wall, you are disguising something as something else.

Stop trying to disguise the 20X20 room as a 10x20 room. Illusions can't disguise things.

When are you going to learn that Illusions are not allowed to make one thing appear to be another thing? That's what Conjurations do.

[virgil]

Imagine the illusion of an ogre sitting in a chair, with a halfling behind a nearby curtain using ventriloquism (real or magical) to give the ogre a voice. How is this any different of a disguise than if the halfling just stood in the chair?

How is hiding behind an illusory wall any different than hiding inside a small hut without doors? How is a giant bell or cup any different than this hut?

[PoliteNewb]

Imagine the illusion of an ogre sitting in a chair, with a halfling behind a nearby curtain using ventriloquism (real or magical) to give the ogre a voice. How is this any different of a disguise than if the halfling just stood in the chair?

How is hiding behind an illusory wall any different than hiding inside a small hut without doors? How is a giant bell or cup any different than this hut?

Because you can walk around the chair and see the halfling, or walk around the wall and see whatever's behind it.

To try to find a generic rule to fit what RC envisions (which, btw, I see as pretty reasonable), how's this:

Figments are 3-dimensional intanglible solids. They cannot be hollow. If you make an illusion of an empty 3x3x3 box, that box is actually a 3x3x3 cube that resembles an empty box. If you make an illusion of a cup, you cannot put that illusionary cup over anything, because the top of the cup is actually a flat plane.

You cannot make "flat" illusions; they must have 3 dimensions. Naturally, this gets into the 'how small can one of those dimensions be?' argument, which I don't feel like having, so I dunno...say 1" is the minimum dimension. Yeah, you can't make an illusion of a bee, cry for me.

A Figment cannot interact with any real, solid object (this gets rid of the "air" objection, which is a ridiculous stretch, but whatever). If this happens, the illusion becomes obvious to all observers.

This IMO makes illusions what they should be...fake things that you use to fool people, but which are a long way from perfect, and that you need to be careful using or people figure them out.

I fully concede up front that this is not RAW.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, but that gets into weird things like how a person would interact as a 3D figment. They have all kinds of weird little bends and twists. What if you have the figment cup it's hands over an object on a table? Seriously. Saying it's solid just gets crazy.

[Zeezy]

Are you saying that if I cast major image to make an illusory dragon, and that dragon stands on a stray pebble for a sufficiently long period of time, then that major image is now breaking the rules of figments because he's disguising that pebble? Pedantic, yes, but that's by the rules being laid out (by RC, and now PoliteNewb). I just want to know in case I decide to make an illusory cottage whether I need to clear the foundation area first with a gust of wind.

[virgil]

Because we don't dare create a visual-only illusion that actually requires more than a casual glance in order to realize that it's not real.

A 'slightly' more sensible approach is to think about interaction. Trying to touch an illusion that moves out of reach to avoid said touch sounds like interaction to me, as does that halfling 'disguised' as an ogre that interacts with the party, and that Will save DC tells us how accurate it is.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah. The interaction rules are terribly vague. I'd think engaging the thing in combat in any real way is "interacting". You swing/reach/shoot and it dodges, and you get to see if it looks like it reacted in a realistic fashion. It's not like you have to touch to see if it feels scaly enough, or whatever to be the only check for disbelief.

[virgil]

And it's been agreed long before on this forum that spending an action to scrutinize it or make an attack of any kind (including a fireball in the area) all count enough for interaction. An illusion interacting with you in a like fashion would logically count as well.

[RandomCasualty2]

Yeah that's a good set of rules PoliteNewb.

@Kaelik: You don't disguise rooms, you disguise objects and creatures. As was stated, blocking line of sight with a figment is fine. A room doesn't become disguised by having an orc or an extra wall in it.

@Zeezy: An illusory dragon wouldn't have to touch pebbles at all. It can totally walk ontop of the them, it just can't envelop them. Given its an illusion and has no effective gravity, it doesn't have to merge with the pebble in the same way it doesn't fall through the floor. I would rule you can't make a figment house at all, Or at least not one that someone can enter. It'd require multiple figments to create a full 3-D illusory environment that's enterable. Like PoliteNewb suggested, I fully support the idea that that figments should be 3D and non-hollow, or at the very least the hollow space inside the figment counts against it as far as interaction goes. Minimum you'd need 4 figments, one for each wall.

[PhaedrusXY]

I would rule you can't make a figment house at all, Or at least not one that someone can enter. It'd require multiple figments to create a full 3-D illusory environment that's enterable. Like PoliteNewb suggested, I fully support the idea that that figments should be 3D and non-hollow, or at the very least the hollow space inside the figment counts against it as far as interaction goes. Minimum you'd need 4 figments, one for each wall.

WTF

Edit:

Ok... since you seem to fall back on "That's just what the rules say" as your argument:

Illusory Wall (Figment)
<snip>
It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally.

This is a figment that states explicitly that other objects can pass through it, and that it can be used to hide other objects by placing it over them. So obviously figments aren't restricted as you're suggesting, at least according to the rules.

[Kaelik]

But guys, RC is just the RAW angel from the sky who has single handedly invented more text to govern figments as a actual rules text than previously exists in the description of figments in order to stay RAW.

And he still doesn't understand that creating a Wall, possibly with a Painting on it, disguises a room, and therefore, cannot be done under the Raw.

[RandomCasualty2]

Illusory Wall (Figment)
<snip>
It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally.

This is a figment that states explicitly that other objects can pass through it, and that it can be used to hide other objects by placing it over them. So obviously figments aren't restricted as you're suggesting, at least according to the rules.

You can "hide" things by putting them behind the wall. As I've said before, obscuring sight is perfectly okay. You can totally obscure a pit by putting a figment floor over the empty space over it. If there's holes that launch arrows as part of your trap, you can put a figment wall in front of them to block sight.

As far as physical objects passing through the wall, well of course, it's not real. The wall doesn't push back on you at all, so physical objects can pass through the wall without any difficulty. If you throw a rock through a figment wall, it goes through it, it doesn't bounce off.

Nowhere do I see anywhere in the text that you can place the illusory wall superimposed over things. The stuff that it gives examples of hiding are all things that can be hidden by simply putting a wall in front of them.

And even if you do believe illusory wall works that way because of spell text, I'd still say that'd be a case of the specific overriding the general and that it wouldn't prove anything about figments in general. So even if you had irrefutable proof that illusory wall worked that way, which you clearly don't, it wouldn't matter one way or the other as far as silent image goes.

[Zeezy]

I would rule you can't make a figment house at all, Or at least not one that someone can enter.

I said "cottage" for a reason.

For example, it is possible to use a silent image spell to create an illusory cottage, but the cottage offers no protection from rain.

This is explicit designer intent. You can totally make a cottage, and you can totally go inside without ruining the illusion (you're still concentrating, so you manipulate the illusion by opening the door as you turn the illusory doorknob), but it won't offer any protection from the elements. I don't know why the PHB would make such a statement if that wasn't the case.

[violence in the media]

Ok, an adventuring party is riding through enemy lands when they spot a large contingent of the Emperor's soldiers. They've already seen the party as they approach the checkpoint, so taking off will be suspicious and provoke a hostile response. One member of the party is an Illusionist and has a great idea to change the heraldry on everyone's shields and tunics to that of the Emperor, or one of his allies, so that the party can pass though the checkpoint.

Quick, what Illusion spell does the Illusionist use to accomplish this?

[Crissa]

Well, I'd say Silent Image has the problem of only making one item.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

This is explicit designer intent. You can totally make a cottage, and you can totally go inside without ruining the illusion (you're still concentrating, so you manipulate the illusion by opening the door as you turn the illusory doorknob), but it won't offer any protection from the elements. I don't know why the PHB would make such a statement if that wasn't the case.

Hey, the PHB in some of its examples explicitly references spells that don't exist, like transmute water to dust in Polymorph any object. These are remnants from 2E, or possibly the designers not being on the same page, as was the case with feats like Eagle Claw attack from Sword and Fist which quite literally does nothing. Likely the guy writing that example hadn't fully read the rules, or just wasn't thinking. He was trying to make the point that illusions couldn't grant shelter, as opposed to trying to explain that you can make explorable illusory buildings. Likely he just used an example he shouldn't have. It wouldn't be the first time the PHB authors made such an error.

Quick, what Illusion spell does the Illusionist use to accomplish this?

Disguise self could do it on you yourself. As far as doing the whole party, something like veil would work.

[LR]

For instance, you could create the illusion of several orcs playing cards and arguing, culminating in a fistfight.

The only differences between a silent image and a persistent image are the extra components and the ability to forgo the need of concentration by programming it.

Likely the guy writing that example hadn't fully read the rules, or just wasn't thinking. He was trying to make the point that illusions couldn't grant shelter, as opposed to trying to explain that you can make explorable illusory buildings. Likely he just used an example he shouldn't have. It wouldn't be the first time the PHB authors made such an error.

So you agree that the description of the Figment subschool is in error and that the no disguises clause can be safely ignored? You can't have it both ways. Until you present evidence that makes the that clause more concrete than the rest of the description, you must accept both statements or forfeit the basis of your argument.