Open-ended powers: illusions, cantrips, etc.

[RandomCasualty2]

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.

No, I'm saying it was one example designed to illustrate a feature of illusions (namely that they don't stop physical objects like rain) which was illegal for another reason that the guy probably didn't fully think through.

The guy who put in the sentence about figments not concealing stuff obviously put that in for a reason, and besides, the general rule trumps the examples. It's a lot more likely the guy fucked up an example as opposed to writing in a general rule that he didn't intend.

And seriously, don't pretend like you're trying to follow the rules here. You know that if the evidence was reversed, you'd be arguing for figments to do that stuff solely because you *want* them to do that and no reason otherwise. You're not searching for the truth here, you're trying to misrepresent the facts to make a case.

The intent is that glamers are used for disguises (note every disguise spell is glamer) and figments are not to be used that. The written rules say the same thing. If you're going to toss out all the overwhleming evidence that that's the case for one example, then you're being a disingenuous rules lawyer.

[Kaelik]

RC, the intent is that you can use Silent fucking Image to make a goddam Cottage, and go hide inside it.

The intent is that you can use Silent fucking Image to make a 3dimensional object that has 3 dimensional forms, and like all such objects, doesn't take up space at every point between. Like for example, a fucking wall with a window.

The intent is to use Silent Image to make the inside of a Torture Dungeon with Torture implements on the walls look like a nice playpen for kids filled with butterflies.

The intent, is for you to make a goddam Chest look like a goddam Stump instead, and that's not a fucking disguise, except that you don't actually know what the word disguise means, which was the point I was trying to make when I kept pointing out that you based on your broadly stupid use of the word disguise, creating a single solid wall counts as disguising a room.

So yes RC, the intent, as well as the RAW of silent image, allows you to disguise a thing as another thing, and to hide in the fucking cottage.

See, this is the problem, you started from a premise:

1) Can't disguise anything. (This is actually wrong, but you used it instead of the RAW because the RAW interpreted in any way to prevent anything actually also just makes it impossible to do anything because the sentence "X seem like Y" can be used to describe any possible use of illusion ever.)

Then because you don't know what disguise means, you extrapolated that into a bunch of made up bullshit rules of your own that are not the intent or raw like "You can never have a hollow figment, because I'm retarded."

Then when someone points out that the goddam raw example is making an obviously hollow cottage to walk inside of, you argue, pay attention here:

"Clearly the guy making the example fucked up, because that would violate the rules that I made up about hollow figments."

Now try again RC:

Does creating an Illusion of a Cottage that is hollow, and has a fucking window, and then walking inside that cottage and waving from the inside of that cottage at the people outside of that cottage involve "make[ing] something seem to be something else."

In the trivial sense that making an empty field seem like a field with a cottage is making something seem to be something else, yes.

But by the same level of thought, making a 20X20 room seem to be a 20X10 room is the same thing.

So RC, what exactly is your actual RAW justification why someone can't make a cottage.

Remember, shit about hollow illusions is not RAW, it's stuff you made up. Stuff you made up does not trump examples in the book.

So what RAW reason can you give to explain why creating a hollow cottage with windows and walking inside is not allowed?

[LR]

No, I'm saying it was one example designed to illustrate a feature of illusions (namely that they don't stop physical objects like rain) which was illegal for another reason that the guy probably didn't fully think through.

The guy who put in the sentence about figments not concealing stuff obviously put that in for a reason, and besides, the general rule trumps the examples. It's a lot more likely the guy fucked up an example as opposed to writing in a general rule that he didn't intend.

And seriously, don't pretend like you're trying to follow the rules here. You know that if the evidence was reversed, you'd be arguing for figments to do that stuff solely because you *want* them to do that and no reason otherwise. You're not searching for the truth here, you're trying to misrepresent the facts to make a case.

The intent is that glamers are used for disguises (note every disguise spell is glamer) and figments are not to be used that. The written rules say the same thing. If you're going to toss out all the overwhleming evidence that that's the case for one example, then you're being a disingenuous rules lawyer.

If the evidence was reversed, I would be telling people that illusions don't do what they think they do, and I'm very sorry that WotC screwed up another mechanic. It's the same thing I do when people say that Monks or Minotaurs are broken, and I have no problem with doing it. However, if we follow your road, then figments don't exist at all, because a Room With a Person in it cannot be disguised as a Room Half the Size But With No People In It, because the wall used to hide the person would make the room seem like a different room entirely. That interpretation cascades down to the point where you can't ever create a figment because it would hide something from someone. You're stopping it from doing that by applying common sense, but you aren't the DM here, and you don't get that right in a rules argument. I can actually give you an interpretation of that rule that doesn't break the game (it doesn't create a disguise that attaches to something like a glamer does), but you don't want to hear it because you think that Blindness that ties up a Wizard's actions in broken at 1st level. It's not, but you have your balance point and the rules have to conform to that.

So, you don't like the results of the rule that you're using, but you don't have a case without it, and you're falling back on attempting to divine what the designers wanted. But then when you're given a clear piece of designer intent (illusory cottages), you backpedal and claim that intent doesn't mean a thing in the face of RAW. But as I demonstrated above, you aren't in the position to make a RAW argument, so with my RAI position confirmed, I'm going to attack your other equally silly argument that illusions must be solid instead. An illusory cottage is not and will never be a solid block. It is a cottage, because if we assume that the designers are going to use their own special and unwritten definitions for things, then we cannot play the game. A cottage is a small house, and houses have empty space in them. Orcs playing cards have empty space between them too. We've already demonstrated multiple times that the general rules don't work, so what are we supposed to fall back on if not the examples that the rules are supposed to convey? RC's imagination?

Also, who do you think wrote those rules? They're in the same section. They're one paragraph away from each other. Am I supposed to believe that two separate people worked on the exact same block of text? I checked the 2E section on illusions too, and there are no mentions of illusory cottages. It is, however, in the 3.0 PHB, where it is even more explicit.

A clever caster, however, can take pains to make the place look old and decrepit, so that the rain falling on the occupants seems to fall from a leaky roof.

Seems pretty clear that the person who wrote the sections on illusions wanted people to be able to walk into them.

[Ice9]

Yeah, I'm not sure where this "Illusions can't cover things" stuff comes from. I mean "can't make things invisible or look smaller, isn't anchored to people/things" seems to be plenty of distinction from Glamers.

And also, Glamers are a subschool of the same school. There are no characters that get Glamers but not Figments. So it's not like protecting the niche of Glamers is even relevant.

[Crissa]

Like was pointed out earlier, the no disguising issue can be worked around many ways. But you have to choose one.

Also, if you can't anchor figments to things... Then how do you cast one on a train? I don't know. I also don't know what happens when you throw a flask at something that flies...

-Crissa

[violence in the media]

Ok, so the simple act of changing the heraldry on the fighter's shield cannot be accomplished with any illusion magic less potent than a 6th level spell? Out of curiosity, why did you skip Seeming? That's still 5th level though, which seems a lot like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant.

[Orion]

Orcs playing cards have empty space between them too.

Not necessarily. You *could* consider that to be two orc figments with unaltered space between, or you could think of it as one continuous figment made of illusionary orcs separated by ILLUSIONARY AIR.

The difference is that in the latter case, waving your hand through the space between the orcs disrupts the effect. Which is what RC is voting for.

Basically, it makes sense if you think of a figment as being like the illusions generated by real-world holograms setups. There's a ring of equipment around the outside of the illusory space, and going inside that ring at all spoils it.

[LR]

Not necessarily. You *could* consider that to be two orc figments with unaltered space between, or you could think of it as one continuous figment made of illusionary orcs separated by ILLUSIONARY AIR.

Nothing in the rules text indicates that this is the case. There is, however, text that supports a cottage that you can walk into. 3.0 even has text supporting a cottage that requires you to worry about the people inside disbelieving the illusion for better reasons than illusory air.

[RobbyPants]

RC: could a figment of a person cup its hands over a pebble on a table, obscuring it completely from vision?

Why or why not?

[RandomCasualty2]

RC: could a figment of a person cup its hands over a pebble on a table, obscuring it completely from vision?

Why or why not?

Personally I'd say no.

Basically how I would handle it is that figments can't occupy the same space as another object, and figments are always considered "solid" for that purpose, even if they're not. That is, as was stated above, you can make a figment of orcs playing a card game, but the space between the orcs still counts as part of the illusion.

Or more concretely, the test is that you can draw a line between any two points in a figment and no solid object can exist between any of those lines.

So if you had say a gem on a table, your figment could put its hands just above the top of the gem, which may well shield it from one side, but it couldn't actually lower its hands such that it blocks more than one side of the gem.

Now I'd also say that such contact would have to be maintained. You can throw a rock through a figment wall without any problems, but if you throw the rock such that it lands and stops inside the wall, then it would result in a problem.

So momentary mistakes with an illusion wouldn't necessarily give it away if your illusion was making quick moves, because I don't consider that truly a disguise. For a disguise the effect has to be prolonged, so I'd allow momentary contact because it wouldn't be breaking the disguise clause.

Now keep in mind these are my personal rulings on this matter, and different DMs may vary. The only thing truly concrete and written in stone is that figments can't disguise things. How you go about achieving that is totally up to the DM.

@Violence: Yeah I did forget seeming. And yes, I agree with you that it seems like way too high level magic to get the job done. But I'm not saying here what I think the rules should be, I'm saying what the rules actually are. I do believe there should be a low level disguise glamer. There should be a "disguise other" so to speak that works like disguise self.

@Ice9: You're missing the point. I'm not designing the game or proposing house rules here. Yes, I realize that there's no innate balance reason to "protect" glamers. But I'm not writing my own system here, I'm trying to make a ruling in an existing system, and clearly in 3E figments are supposed to do one thing, while glamers do another.

@Crissa: The train thing is an edge case, but one that ultimately applies to all spells equally, such as wall of force on a train. However your DM rules in that case is effectively the same as for an illusion. But note that you can't anchor walls of force to people or objects, only scenery. In the case of moving scenery, generally the DM makes some ruling there.

@Kaelik: You're right that on its face, assuming that you provided ample empty space in the cottage, it wouldn't classify as a disguise, the main reason I don't allow that is simply because it becomes an adjudication problem as to when too small becomes a disguise. Everyone can probably agree that putting a form fitting "blue cover that looks exactly like a red car" over a red car is a disguise, just like putting a suit of full plate over a human to make him dress the same way as the guards is a disguise. Now, as far as when your DM draws the line between disguise and scenery props is largely up to him. I present my ruling because it's something people can test in game easily. It's also somewhat heavy handed in that it does eliminate some legitimate scenery.

I honestly can't think of a codified ruling that's going to allow a cottage but disallow you creating illusory shell disguises. Thus for the sake of consistency I present a ruling that's easy to adjudicate, though somewhat limiting.

However, when you said "The intent is to use Silent Image to make the inside of a Torture Dungeon with Torture implements on the walls look like a nice playpen for kids filled with butterflies. "

You are flat out wrong. There's no room for interpretation here, that's just flat out fucking wrong. 100% wrong. As quoted by the SRD Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. Clearly this is exactly what you're doing and therefore it is not allowable by RAW nor is it designer intent. And honestly if you can't agree with me on that, then I'm not even going to bother talking to you on this thread anymore because you're either determined to ignore the rules or are simply incapable of comprehending them. Like I said earlier in the thread, this stuff is basic logic. You want to do A and the rules say not A. So unless you ignore the rules, you can't do A. If you can't at least agree to that, then we basically have nothing to talk about.

[LR]

You are flat out wrong. There's no room for interpretation here, that's just flat out fucking wrong. 100% wrong. As quoted by the SRD Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. Clearly this is exactly what you're doing and therefore it is not allowable by RAW nor is it designer intent. And honestly if you can't agree with me on that, then I'm not even going to bother talking to you on this thread anymore because you're either determined to ignore the rules or are simply incapable of comprehending them. Like I said earlier in the thread, this stuff is basic logic. You want to do A and the rules say not A. So unless you ignore the rules, you can't do A.

Kaelik is not wrong. He is just using a different interpretation of that rule, as am I. "Figments cannot create disguises that follow objects around." A glamer doesn't just create an illusory shell around an object, it actually changes the sensory outputs coming off of it, so my interpretation is just as valid as yours, and doesn't require any in-game adjudication. I'm not sure if Kaelik's interpretation is the same, but I'm assuming that it's similar because he agrees that you can in fact hide a person with an illusory wall. I also say that you can move a figment around to keep an image over someone, because it's ludicrous to assume that the spell is checking your mind for intent to disguise. That requires concentration, which means that a Wizard that's busy playing with a figment can't do anything else. Glamers have their niche, and disguise-capable figments do not overlap with them.

[RandomCasualty2]

Kaelik is not wrong. He is just using a different interpretation of that rule, as am I.

No, he's seriously not. He wants to use figments to create pits in floor, literally making the fucking floor invisible. Even if you allow shells. Pits do not fly under even the loosest of interpretations. He wants figments to do everything glamers do, including make stuff fucking invisible.

Kaelik is just flat out ignoring the rules because he doesn't like them.

[Orion]

You are gonna have to cite where Kaelik said that you could create the illusion of a pit, with depth, with a figment, making the floor invisible, because I'm not finding it in this thread.

[Zeezy]

No, he's seriously not. He wants to use figments to create pits in floor, literally making the fucking floor invisible.

Lost Doors: One door per caster level is covered by a silent image to appear as if it were a plain wall. Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with). Spell Resistance: No.

Explain this. Go on. It's horribly out of scope for an abjuration to use an illusion (figment) to disguise a door as a wall (or, as you put it, to make the door invisible), wouldn't you say?

[RandomCasualty2]

No, he's seriously not. He wants to use figments to create pits in floor, literally making the fucking floor invisible.

Lost Doors: One door per caster level is covered by a silent image to appear as if it were a plain wall. Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with). Spell Resistance: No.

Explain this. Go on. It's horribly out of scope for an abjuration to use an illusion (figment) to disguise a door as a wall (or, as you put it, to make the door invisible), wouldn't you say?

I'm assuming it's picturing your typical dungeon door in some kind of an indentation and you put the silent image in front of the door. Like this.



Basically the silent image goes in the empty space in front of the door. So you see a wall, even though there's a door behind it. Remember, figments can go in empty space.

[Kaelik]

You are flat out wrong. There's no room for interpretation here, that's just flat out fucking wrong. 100% wrong. As quoted by the SRD Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. Clearly this is exactly what you're doing and therefore it is not allowable by RAW nor is it designer intent. And honestly if you can't agree with me on that, then I'm not even going to bother talking to you on this thread anymore because you're either determined to ignore the rules or are simply incapable of comprehending them. Like I said earlier in the thread, this stuff is basic logic. You want to do A and the rules say not A. So unless you ignore the rules, you can't do A. If you can't at least agree to that, then we basically have nothing to talk about.

RC. Is Making a Room of torture look like a playpen making something seem like something else?

Is making a Room that is 20X20 look like a room that is 20X10 making something seem like something else?

What if half your room is playpen and the other half is torture?

Oh shit, you are retarded.

Making a room that was torture look instead like a playpen room is something Silent Image is made to do as a Figment. Glamers can change shit, but if you actually want to make a bunch of cribs in the middle of your room, you want Silent Image.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC. Is Making a Room of torture look like a playpen making something seem like something else?

Yes, I assume you're using a figment to somehow superimpose the image of a crib and toys over torture implements and equipment, so yeah. it is.

Is making a Room that is 20X20 look like a room that is 20X10 making something seem like something else?

No, because a room isn't a D&D object and isn't a "thing" in the D&D sense, it's just a location.

What if half your room is playpen and the other half is torture?

You can create a playpen in empty space but it's still going to have the torture stuff there, assuming half the torture room was empty, you could fill the empty space.

Oh shit, you are retarded.

Okay, fuck you Kaelik.

You claimed you could make a fucking pit trap with silent image, and that makes you beyond retarded, since you're claiming silent image can make the floor invisible.

You are so stupid you wish you were retarded.

Seriously you claimed earlier you could "create" pits, which is only possible by making the fucking floor invisible. Right there you fail the basic logic test.

Don't you dare call anyone else stupid when you're just blatantly ignoring the rules.

Seriously it's not even worth talking to you anymore, because your pea-sized brain is simply not willing to accept basic logic.

Kaelik your brain is made of fail. I'm not responding to you anymore. Read the fucking rules, go suck a barrel of cocks and die.

[Kaelik]

RC, let me try to explain the concept of an illusion to you. An illusion is where you make something seem to be something else.

That's what an illusion actually is.

So when part of the rules say "You cannot make something seem to be something else" those rules are wrong. A Room is something. It is not an object, it is not a creature. It is something. Because definitionally, everything is something. And illusions make something seem to be something else, or they are not illusions.

This:

exists. And the word we use to describe it is illusion. Now, if because of the way figments work you have to put that slightly above the level of the floor, then so what, that just changes the angles slightly.

I get that you are trying to make a principled distinction between what counts as something and what doesn't, because the RAW text is always right and never wrong, and you have to try to create a distinction so that the words don't negate all figments.

But here's the problem, the distinction is entirely within your head, and you are allowing your made up distinction to become more important than the actual rules.

Jews have this thing, where on Saturdays, they are commanded by God to not start fires. So a long time ago, someone tried to start defining what counts as starting fires. So they came up with, no making sparks, but you can feed an existing fire.

Then electricity came along, and the Jewish Rabbis decided to interpret turning on a light switch based on their previous interpretation. And then Electricity became used on computers, and they had to interpret their computers based on their previous interpretation of light switches.

And like a Jewish Rabbi, you build interpretation on interpretation, until the interpretations supersede any actual rule.

You seriously think that making A silent Image of a flat wall with a bend in it counts as breaking the rules. That's where you currently stand. You are claiming that not only every single example made ever for the silent image spell is invalid, but that even the most obvious and simple things, such as a fucking wall with a single corner in it become impossible.

And you do this based on your increasingly crazy interpretations. None of the hundreds of examples of things you have declared Silent Image cannot do are examples of breaking the actual rules. They are just breaking successive layers of interpretations that are all based on faulty reading of one sentence.

Goddam it RC, you seriously think that making any three dimensional structure with even a single concave angle anywhere at all is illegal. You are so far past insane that your ramblings are just being mocked and ignored by everyone at this point, with not a single person taking you seriously.

[Zeezy]

I'm assuming it's picturing your typical dungeon door in some kind of an indentation and you put the silent image in front of the door. [snip] Basically the silent image goes in the empty space in front of the door. So you see a wall, even though there's a door behind it. Remember, figments can go in empty space.

Be that as it may, guards and wards turns the doorway into a plain wall; thus, that archway in the stone would probably be concealed to make it look as if a door never existed there. Even so, we're assuming all the doorways in the area to be warded are like that; what if they aren't? If there isn't a convenient empty space to layer the wall over, does the lost doors option of guards and wards still function as advertised? I should hope so, because I'm not spending 30 minutes and a 6th level spell slot to get nothing. And keep in mind that both sides of the doorway should be concealed by a silent image; one side only won't work.

[Orca]

Personally, I'm iffy about the pit illusion - from the wrong angle, or if you move, the perspective on that street art looks completely wrong. If you just want it to give a moments hesitation it'd be fine & perhaps it'd work if there were other things to distract the onlooker (like an adventuring party firing bows & scorching rays etc from across the pit?)

I don't agree that you can stretch a few words in RAW about not being used for disguises to make hollow & concave figments impossible. That just seems silly, especially when you could easily read the same words as "it isn't usually practical to use figments as personal disguises".

[malak]

FYI: An explanation and discussion of illusions and interactions with them can be found here, written by Skip Williams:

part one: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
part two: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a
part three: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a
part four: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a

[koz]

Note, this is the same Skip that basically made up rules as Sage without reading any books ever. Take it with a huge grain of salt.

[Crissa]

Skip is an idiot. He says you can make a floor over a pit but not a carpet over a trap door. It's the same stupid argument.

-Crissa

[malak]

Note, this is the same Skip that basically made up rules as Sage without reading any books ever. Take it with a huge grain of salt.

For some things, it has some nice advice on actually handling illusions in game, but other things are just as murky as ever:

Beware of attempts to use figments as glamers. For example, you can use a figment to create an apple tree, but you can't use a figment to make your buddy look like an apple tree. You'd need a glamer spell to perform the latter trick.

You could use a figment spell to make an illusory house, a grove of trees (with leafy branches for concealment), or even a hill or big rock. The party will be concealed so long as the characters stay underneath the illusion.

So I can make a grove of trees, but not a single tree around my buddy?

[RobbyPants]

Perhaps... perhaps he means that you can't put your buddy inside a tree, but you can hide your friends in a grove of trees, but not inside any single one of them. This sounds like RC's crazy figments-can't-be-hollow-cuz-I-said-so argument.

Still, he says that they can go inside a cottage, which is by definition hollow, so I don't see why the single tree can't be hollow. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's talking about.