How a ****ing cantrip exterminates an entire school of magic. NO MORE OF THAT!

[Greenfield]

CJ, please look at Silent Image, or Disguise Self in either the 3.0 or 3.5 player's handbook. Do either of the descriptions include that wondrous phrase "Mind Affecting"?

How about Hallucinatory Terrain? Permanent Illusion? Programmed Illusion?

Any of them have that descriptor? How about Invisibility? Greater Invisibility? Invisibility Sphere? No?

The fact is the there are very few Illusion spells that are also considered "mind affecting". At least according to the PHBs that I own.

So the illusion exists, and is detected, at the range and within the area specified in the spell, not in the mind of the observer.

And while it's flattering to think that I could conjure a mass illusion over the internet, the fact is, you were just fooling yourself.

 

[cjosephs1s]

Well this is where I'm using logic and not just the rules. Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real? If they are real then they shouldn't be illusions now should they? They should be conjurations (such as mage hand) or evocations (such as fireball). But they aren't real and thus not really there. Of if they are then the rules contradict themselves, logic, magic, and physics. How can something be there and not be there but have an effect on the world around it if its not there but is there? Is this what you are saying? This is the part that I can't comprehend. I'm not fooling myself. I'm just not a supergenious and able to understand how to break all the rules all at once and still have something work. So i've found a solution to my problem (and yours) that does make sense, it works, it follows a line of logic better than most, still allows physics to works and still allows the rules to function just fine and is relatively simple. Or you can disregard the school of Illusion magic? Make more sense now?

 

[Empirate]

As another patron is fond of saying: Imagine Harder! You don't put too much work into the task of imagining how illusions can be real, but fake.

Is a lie a real statement? Yes, it is. You use verbal speech to convey it. It is quite real, it just isn't factual. Extend the concept to physical objects and forces, and you have illusion spells.

If that's too hard, think Star Trek holodeck. Once you find out that it's just holograms, and safety protocols are in effect, you're no longer fooled - although the photon constructs are still perceivable (is that a word?).

 

[cjosephs1s]

Well the holodeck is a bad example as those things actually have matter and thus can be interacted with (this is why Worf can do combat simulation and still hit them) but the lie thing kinda makes sense. I still think my approach (even if you all say its not how the rules work) fixes the problem of a cantrip negating a school of magic. As I think in the spirit of things this is not the way WotC wanted it to be. I guess I should go invest in some goggles of detect magic for a few hundred gold if this is the case.

And yes Perceived is a word and you even got the spelling correct.

 

[Tovec]

Well the holodeck is a bad example as those things actually have matter and thus can be interacted with (this is why Worf can do combat simulation and still hit them) but the lie thing kinda makes sense. I still think my approach (even if you all say its not how the rules work) fixes the problem of a cantrip negating a school of magic. As I think in the spirit of things this is not the way WotC wanted it to be. I guess I should go invest in some goggles of detect magic for a few hundred gold if this is the case.

And yes Perceived is a word and you even got the spelling correct.

Actually, the holodeck is fairly decent example in a couple of ways.. well I'm using holograms and not the deck but you'll get the idea.

If Worf had a tricorder, a reasonably common device to detect what things truly are, then he would know the hologram is not indeed a real flesh and blood person. Does that make dealing with that hologram any easier? No. Does it mean that he can simply walk through a holographic wall any easier? No. Determining something IS a hologram can help in a few ways but it doesn't help when interacting with them. It tells Worf that something ain't right with what he is seeing but it won't tell him what the hologram is doing. It doesn't say if the hologram is the person, or what they look like, or an object they carry. It doesn't give him anything on what that hologram can actually do. It doesn't tell him (by itself) if the safety protocols are turned on or off and how deadly (phantasmal) a hologram may be. A worse example not involving a person would be; it doesn't tell him if the console is the hologram or if what is being displayed is fake.

 

[Greenfield]

Well this is where I'm using logic and not just the rules. Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real?

And this is where I'm using logic instead of jumping to conclusions.

No, I'm not saying that they're real. They're illusions, but the location of that illusion, the place where it can be detected, is exactly where the observer perceives it to be. That is, at the location specified by the spell caster, which is withing the limits of the range and area described in the spell in the PHB. Not in the minds of the observers.

Is this what you are saying?

No. See above.

This is the part that I can't comprehend. I'm not fooling myself.

Well, you are fooling yourself if your eyes see the words I wrote, and your mind concludes that I was saying something else. I never said they were conjurations, I never said they were "real".

And, while I won't comment on your status as a super genius, I will point out that I'm not trying to "break all the rules at once". I'm following the rules, exactly as written in the PHB. The only person here who seems to be advocating anything other than RAW is you.

So i've found a solution to my problem (and yours) that does make sense, it works, it follows a line of logic better than most, still allows physics to works and still allows the rules to function just fine and is relatively simple. Or you can disregard the school of Illusion magic? Make more sense now?

How to respond to this...

This is the first (and I hope last) attempt I've seen to bring physics into the discussion. Physics has no place in a discussion of magic. I'll break out the hamster cannon to prove it, if necessary. (Don't make me go there.)

Is your line of logic better than simply reading the rules and following them? That's a matter of opinion, obviously. You think so, I don't.

Do the rules, as written, make illusions severely weak? Yeah, and maybe that's an overcompensation for them being obscenely strong without some kind of damper. The sheer versatility of the illusion spells makes them powerful far beyond their levels. Used subtley they'll slide right past the Detedct Magic issue without a blip and still wreak havoc on adversaries.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Ok..So your saying that most illusions are real? If they are real then they shouldn't be illusions now should they?

You seem to be conflating "illusionary" with "imaginary." There really is some magical force that exists where the illusion appears; that magical force just isn't what it seems to be.

Really, the PHB itself addresses this issue in its discussion of figments (page 173): "Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.)"

And then it distinguishes patterns from figments: "Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells."

You see? A figment that affects one's mind isn't a figment, it's a pattern. Not all illusions are patterns, though; some are figments, which are different from patterns in that they don't affect the minds of those who see them.

 

[Empirate]

Solid rules quotations for the win, Vegepygmy. Sorry I can't XP you right now.

 

[Visigani]

Invisibility makes flaming swords invisible. A flaming sword is a sword with a magical aura that is naturally visible. Despite this invisibility also makes the MAGIC inherent to the sword invisible.

It can be assumed then that if you cast detect magic and viewed an invisible person wielding a magical weapon you would not be able to detect that invisible weapon as the spell of invisibility itself would make the aura imperceptible, just as it makes the flaming aspect of the flaming sword aura imperceptible.

This then, can be assumed of all Illusion (Glamer) spells. That the spells inherent sensory altering abilities supersede detect magic.

This would also hold true of pattern, and phantasm spells due to the nature of how they work.

Shadow and Figment spells, however, would have auras and would appear to be magic.

 

[kitcik]

Hmm

.