Dark illusory room

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: one interpretation

I suppose this is what I disagree with (or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "real"). If the sound from Ghost Sound was "real", you wouldn't get a save to disbelieve.

That's one of the problems with Figments and Glamers. The vast majority of people (IME) do not understand how they work.

In the Ghost Sound case, the sound is absolutely real.

You hear sound. You hear very specific sound.

The Will save is only given if you interact with the sound. If you look down the hallway and hear the sound of marching feet, you get an opportunity to either think that it is illusionary sound, or you might notice small discrepancies in the sound or whatever.

But, regardless of the rationale behind why you get to save, you only get to save if there is some form of interaction involved: some form of indication that something isn't quite the way it should be.

Otherwise, the sound is just as real as any other sound. And even after you save, you still hear the sound and it is still real. You just happen to know it is not natural sound, but sound created via an illusion.


In the case of the various Image spells, you see reflected (or emitted) light. You see very specific light. But again, the light from that image is there and is real. You only get a Will save if you interact with that image.

And, if you make your save, you still see the image. You know that it is an illusion, but you do not get to "see behind it" to see what it is covering up, just because you saved. You need True Seeing or some other magic for that.

I suppost the actual issue is, what properties do figments need in order to be useful and "balanced" with other schools of magic.

I don't agree that there is no way to create typical illusions, although you might need a glamer instead of a figment to do it.

You only need a glamer if you are making an object appear to be a different object. So, putting a bonfire on a floor would actually cover the floor, but you aren't really trying to make a floor look like a bonfire, you are trying to put a bonfire on the floor. So, a figment would suffice (at least IMO).

But, if you want to have the capacity in a game to have images that emit light (e.g. Glowing Sword), you have to not disallow figments and glamers from emitting light.

In the bonfire example, I think one could create an illusion of a bonfire illuminating a room. However, the illuminated room would be what the illusionist envisions, not the actual room. Does this interpretation limit figments to such an extent that they aren't useful or balanced. I don't think so. The issue of illusionists needing to select images appropriate to the environment has been around since 1E.

I do not understand, again, why you would need to restrict it this way.

I am an Illusionist. I want an illusion of a bonfire in the current room. I place it there.

End of story. No need to change the entire room to be an illusion of itself and if someone moves a book in that room, they suddenly see two books, the real one and the illusionary one.

I think the simpler system of allowing any image anywhere is easiest to adjudicate and keep consistent.

And, even in your example above, you are still having the image emit light. Otherwise, the bonfire would still be dark until a light source is brought closer, regardless of what you made the rest of the room look like.

Illusions have always been one of the hardest things to adjudicate, for the reasons you say. To me, whether or not figments can illuminate darkness is much less important than being consistent.

Agreed, but the former is important if you want to create any sort of illusion that emits light.

 

[0-hr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: one interpretation

KarinsDad

And, if you make your save, you still see the image. You know that it is an illusion, but you do not get to "see behind it" to see what it is covering up, just because you saved. You need True Seeing or some other magic for that.

vs the SRD

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one interpretation

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

Here we go again. Hopefully it will not become a shouting match this time.

And, this response is long, but it takes a while to really sift through the many different problems with illusions in the book if you go by this sentence and the sentences that follow it. But, I have put a lot of thought into this over time and realized that the writers probably left these sentences in by accident. Either that or they spent virtually no time thinking about this aspect of some illusions and screwed most of them up. And I'm willing to listen to alternative ways that these sentences work with the illusions in the book, but I'm hard pressed to see a clean solution that includes them.

Yes, the SRD has this sentence. The PHB has it too. And so, some people will probably play it that way (somehow).

But, in all seriousness, it is at least partially mistaken and probably totally mistaken. The entire illusion section and set of spells was not checked for accuracy, consistency, or what happens to other effects such as sound or thermal when a save is made. Otherwise, they would not have had to make the second edition changes like the ones jgbrowning pointed out.

I cannot prove that this sentence is totally in error, but that's the only logical conclusion. Personally, I think someone wrote it and then they just forgot about it when writing the spells and never went back to fix it.

I can, however, show a series of spells which partially or wholly contradict these sentences (like the other phrase was contradicted in the first edition and SRD) or create game mechanic problems. It is up to each DM to decide whether these sentences are in error or the spell descriptions are in error or that certain contradictions have to be sidestepped somehow, ignored, or adjudicated differently in different situations.

1) Phantasms are only in the mind of the viewer, so how can they have translucent outlines? For example, Phantasmal Killer. Here, it does not say what happens if the will saving throw is made, presumably nothing. But, since it is an instantaneous spell, how can translucent outlines remain?

Or, Illusionary Script. But, it doesn’t talk about translucent outlines if the save is made. It talks about being able to look away and not be affected by the spell if the save is made.

There are only three Phantasms in the entire PHB and the third one, Dream, doesn’t have images, it has messages. It also does not have a saving throw. So, translucent outlines cannot apply to any of the three Phantasms in the book as written. So, why is it in this sentence?

Maybe the sentence was really supposed to be about Glamers instead of Phantasms since they are illusions which change the sensory qualities of an object and Figments are illusions that do effectively the same thing, but just not on an object (i.e. illusions of objects when actual objects are not really there).

But then, Invisibility should have a saving throw to see an translucent outline if that were the case. It doesn’t take much to realize that someone is invisible in the vicinity. Blur should have a save as well to see the illusionary portions of the spell. But, it doesn’t. There are a lot of Glamer spells that do not have Will saves to let the character know that there is an illusion, but the character already knows in a lot of those cases that it is an illusion. So, the conclusion is that you typically cannot perceive through a Glamer and find out the truth beneath without other magic.

And, if you read things like Change Self, other characters do get a Will save to notice that it is an illusion. But nowhere does it state that they actually get to see what the real character looks like under that illusion. With the amount of duplicate information given in the book over and over again, something so obvious and necessarily for the spell should at least rate a sentence.

Ditto for Hallucinatory Terrain. The best I can tell, you know you are in a Glamer illusion, but you still see it as presented. The spell does not indicate either way, but again, it seems that such an obvious thing would be mentioned if your perception of the glamer changed due to making the will save. (i.e. you could feel that what looks like a tree is really a rock and no longer feels like a tree and now feels like a rock and has a translucent outline).

Veil, on the other hand, states “who interact with the subjects can attempt Will disbelief saves to see through the glamer”. But, this is the only glamer spell that states this and it could just be a poor choice of words (or one of the few spells written at the time of the contested sentence) since all other such Glamers state it does this to “recognize the glamer as an illusion”, not to see through it.

So, it appears that they were not talking about Figments and Glamers as opposed to Figments and Phantasms. If they were talking about Glamers, they only have it in one Glamer in the entire book out of many Glamers where it says anything even close. There are probably more Glamers than any other type of illusion, but none of the rest state anything about seeing through the Glamer. And, many Glamers explicitly prevent you from seeing through them.

It appears that Glamers and Phantasms were not the illusion types for this sentence, but who can really tell?

Also, I will not go into all of the reasons why it makes no sense for these sentences to apply to Patterns (most of which are instantaneous) or Shadows (which stick around and have partial effect if the save is made), but it should be fairly obvious.

2) The weird thing here is that Glamers and Figments are nearly identical with the exception of one being an illusion on an object and the other not, especially when you are talking about Glamers like Change Self. So, why would Figments have this translucent property when Glamers do not? That seems inconsistent.

Well, let’s look at some Figments:

Illusionary Wall: “This spell creates the illusion of a wall, floor, ceiling, or similar surface. 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. Touch or probing searches reveal the true nature of the surface, though they do not cause the illusion to disappear.”

Does this last sentence mean that it does not disappear for other viewers of the wall, just for the guy who made the save? That’s not really what it says. It says that probing reveals it as an illusion, but does not make it disappear. I would think that everyone knows that it is an illusion if you probe a pole through it since that sentence says that’s what happens. So, why wouldn’t it disappear for them and be replaced with a translucent outline?

Ghost Sounds. It creates sound. What happens if you make your will save? Nothing says. There are no translucent images for sound. Maybe the sound lowers in volume or changes pitch? Who can say? I think it is just as reasonable to think that the sound does not change, you just happen to understand that it is caused by a spell as opposed to being natural.

Mirror Image does not have a saving throw to see translucent outlines.

Major Image has the images disappear if struck unless the spell caster causes it to act appropriately. Well, what about the will save? Does it mean that the characters who made the save see a translucent outline? If so, then why does both Mirror Image and Major Image both have disappearing images when struck, but you can make a will save to see translucent images with one, but not the other? Why is the higher level spell not as protected against will saves as the lower level spell, even though you absolutely know the images are illusions with the lower level spell and you do not know that with the higher level spell?

None of that makes any sense.

Mislead: Once you make the will save, the image becomes translucent and you can see through it according to the contested sentence. But, you can still feel it, hear it, and smell it. So, all of the aspects of the illusion would still be there for a blind person, but for a sighted person, part of the illusion would disappear and be replaced with a translucent outline. Why do some of the properties of the illusion vanish while others remain? It seems extremely strange that one property of an illusion would totally change and that they would not have any information on what happens with the other properties.

Ditto for Persistent Image. You still hear and smell the Orcs playing cards, but they suddenly look like translucent outlines to you.

3) Figments like Silent Image, Minor Image, and Major Image have a set Area of Effect. The illusion does not extend beyond those areas. However, characters outside those areas can still see those illusions.

So, you have two possibilities. One is how I interpret Illusions. The magic is confined to that area and the Figment reflects (or emits) real light from that area. Someone a hundred feet away sees that real light.

The other is that the magic extends beyond the area to affect a character one hundred feet away or a thousand feet away, whatever. When that character fires an arrow at the sleeping Ogre in the illusion and the arrow goes right through him, the character has interacted with the magic and gets a save, realizes it is an illusion and the Ogre suddenly becomes a translucent outline for that character. The magic for that character and only that character changes.

But, there is some game mechanic problems with this. If the magic extends beyond the Area of Effect, first off, this is something new. Magic within an Area of Effect does not extend beyond the Area of Effect by definition of Effect.

Also, Globes of Invulnerability prevent effects from certain level spells from entering the globe. So, if the magic is allowed to extend beyond the Area of Effect to either be seen as an image or as an translucent outline, depending on whether a character made a save, that same character in a Globe of Invulnerability 100 feet away should see neither effect. The magic of the low level illusion should not get through the Globe.

If another character has a Mirror Image 100 feet away and you are in a Globe of Invulnerability, you do not stop him from being protected by his Mirror Image since his spell is not within your Globe. You also still see any visible effect created by any other low level spell beyond your Globe. You are not affected by those spells, but you still see them. So you would still see the Mirror Image spell (it does not have a will save), even though it is a Figment.

On the other hand, if the illusion just reflects or emits light, then that light could easily get through the Globe.


So, what conclusions can one make from this?

1) Phantasms (and Patterns and Shadows) cannot be meant by this sentence at all.

2) Figments may be meant, but lower level Figments have ways to prevent being perceived through by a save whereas higher level Figments do not.

3) The sentence may mean Glamers and Figments, but there is only one Glamer in the book that allows you to see through it if the save is made and a significant majority of Glamers explicitly prevent you from doing this. It's possible that the authors wanted Figments and Glamers to work this way and then later on forgot it when they wrote the actual spells. It almost sounds like one of the authors brought his "house rule" in from his game, but the spells do not quite correspond to it.

4) Figments with Area of Effects (most) have problems with the saving throw and Globes of Invulnerability beyond the Area of Effect. The magic of the Figments apparently can go beyond their Area of Effect and get through the Globe and extend beyond their own Area of Effect if your visual image changes to a translucent outline.


My conclusion is that this sentence and the ones after it in the PHB are obsolete and inappropriate ones which do not correspond to the vast majority of illusion spells. They appear to jar with how most of those spells are written. Quite frankly, it looks like the writers totally dropped the ball on Illusions and how to adjudicate them.

If you interpret Figments and Glamers to just reflect and emit light and/or sound and/or touch and/or thermal qualities, all of these problems go away. You make a saving throw to realize that there is something wrong with the image that you are getting from the illusion and figure it out. Because it is just simple lights and sounds, it cannot harm you in any way.

Obviously, YMMV. But, you do not get weird side effects with my interpretation (i.e. by dropping this sentence). Instead, you get a series of illusions which are easy to adjudicate since they behave well by staying within their Area of Effect and all of the properties of the illusions work in similar manners.

 

[0-hr]

*shrug*

 

[MerakSpielman]

A brief essay:

There are a lot of potential problems with illusions that cannot be adiquately covered by the rules. Let's list a few that have come up and a few that havn't:

1) Can you give a normally illuminated room the illusion of being in shadow or darkness?

2) Can you use illusury light to illuminate a truly dark room?

3) Can an illusion REFLECT light?


OK, all official rulings aside, this is how I would adjucate this IMC.

1) Yes, you can try this. It will probably be rather obvious that is is an illusion, since we are presuming the room would otherwise be illuminated and must therefore have windows, torches, openings to other, illuminated spaces, etc... It would take a pretty dumb adventurer to not wonder why it's day outside that window but dark in the room. I would give all characters entering the room an automatic saving throw to resist believing in the illusion. The DC would be at a -4 penalty. If the characters are carrying their own light sources into the room they would instantly dispel the illusion. Darkvision would not function because it requires "real" darkness, so a character with darkvision would automatically make their saving throw. Shadowdancers would be unable to enter the shadows in the room and automatically disbelieve when they tried. Anybody attempting to Hide would automatically disbelieve. All in all, the illusion would be rather worthless.

2) No, but you can create the illusion of light and BELIEVE the room is illuminated. Say you create the illusion of a torch to try to see the contents of a room that is truly and completely dark. Only what your mind already knows or suspects is there will be illuminated - you will believe you can see them. The human mind can fill in a lot of gaps with very little input, such as the relative size of the room by unconscious sound/echo recognition, or the fact that the walls will probably look like the walls in the last room or the corridor. All details will be vague or absent. If the character has been in the room before, they will see it as they remember it. If there is anything in the room that they did not see there before, they cannot see it. If they interact with such a thing (trip over it, etc...), the illusion will be dispelled. If, for instance, the character had left a letter or map there, they would be able to read it if they have read it before. If somebody had modified or added to it, the changes would not be visible. Any illusionist would know that it would be more effective to simply cast a light spell or light a torch if they really wanted to see.
The illusury bonfire: The room would be illuminated as above. The inconsistancies of sight and actuality will probably tip the characters off about the nature of the bonfire quickly (-4 to DC again)
Illusion of somebody holding a glowing weapon: If the area is otherwise illuminated, there is no problem. If the weapon is the only source of light, it is limited as above.
Mirror Image of you holding a torch: The light shed by the illusury torches is not real and subject to the above limitations, but since the real you is holding a real torch, the room will be illuminated properly, as by the number of torches seen. Using the above framework, an observer could attempt to determine which torches (and therefore images) were false, but the constantly shifiting nature of the spell would make them lose track again very quickly.

3) say you create the illusion of a knight is shining armor. A character approaches with a torch in an otherwise dark room. Is the torchlight reflected by the shiny armor, making those cool reflective spats of light on the walls? I would say yes, until and unless the illusion was disbelieved or dispelled. These bits of light would illuminate the room only as detailed in the above examples, but since there is a torch in the room most of it will be properly visable anyway. If the knight couldn't reflect light differently depending on the kind of light he's standing in, then any illusion (such as the famous illusions of Big Monsters) wouldn't look right - they would look the same regardless of being in torchlight or shadow, sunlight or under venetian blinds. If light and shadow can appear to interact with the skin of a monster (down to and including the monster casting a shadow) than light will also appear to reflect.
What if you were to create the illusion of a mirror in a normal, well-lit room? I think you would see yourself in the mirror. You rogue trying to sneak up on you and backstab you would see himself and you in the mirror (and assume you saw him). You would not, however, see the rogue. Nor would you see the spot of gravy on your chin if you didn't already know it was there.


P.S. would you believe I finally registered on this board just so I could respond on this topic? Maybe it's also because the Wizards boards were down and I craved the ability to say something...

 

[KarinsDad]

OK, all official rulings aside, this is how I would adjucate this IMC.

Wow MS. I am blowing off one rule about illusions, but you are totally blowing off the rules for illusions.

1) Yes, you can try this. It will probably be rather obvious that is is an illusion, since we are presuming the room would otherwise be illuminated and must therefore have windows, torches, openings to other, illuminated spaces, etc...

Why should it be obvious? Why couldn't it be some form of "Shadow Magic" (not a Shadow illusion) that lowers the illumination of the room? It might be obvious that magic is at work, but the type of magic shouldn't necessarily be so clear cut.

Darkvision would not function because it requires "real" darkness, so a character with darkvision would automatically make their saving throw.

"The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."

Darkvision does not require real darkness.

I see no reason why darkvision would get an advantage here over normal sight since both would see a dark room. The illusion would not attempt to hinder the darkvision. Think of darkvision as the lights are always on, even if they are off, but only in black and white. That character would see the dark shadows of the illusion and wonder why they are there, just like the character with normal sight would see them and wonder why they are there.

Shadowdancers would be unable to enter the shadows in the room and automatically disbelieve when they tried.

This seems reasonable since it is a special ability that uses actual shadows.

Anybody attempting to Hide would automatically disbelieve.

The act of hiding should be like any other interaction with the illusion. It gets a saving throw, but it should not be an automatic save. You hide in a dark area, it looks dark to you.

All in all, the illusion would be rather worthless.

I think it depends. If I create the illusion of an object "sucking the light out of the room", characters should instantly think it is a magical effect, but not necessarily know automatically that it is an illusion.

2) No, but you can create the illusion of light and BELIEVE the room is illuminated. Say you create the illusion of a torch to try to see the contents of a room that is truly and completely dark. Only what your mind already knows or suspects is there will be illuminated - you will believe you can see them.

This comes down to whether illusions are allowed to emit real light or not. In the first printing of the PHB, they were allowed to do that (e.g. Dancing Lights).

And, you have to distinguish between Figments/Glamers and Phantasms when you discuss illusions. Here, you are pulling mind affecting elements into an illusion which is the domain of Phantasms, not Figments or Glamers. Why would you even attempt to create a Phantasm to fool your own mind into thinking a room was lit? You wouldn't. Instead, you would either use a Figment to create a fake lit torch, or you would use a Glamer on a torch or dagger to make it look like a lit torch.

If you are allowed to create the illusion of a lit torch, it should light up the room normally.

If you are not allowed to create the illusion of a lit torch because you as DM rule that illusions cannot emit light, then the spell should fail.

Mirror Image of you holding a torch: The light shed by the illusury torches is not real and subject to the above limitations, but since the real you is holding a real torch, the room will be illuminated properly, as by the number of torches seen. Using the above framework, an observer could attempt to determine which torches (and therefore images) were false, but the constantly shifiting nature of the spell would make them lose track again very quickly.

Ah, but what about a Mirror Image in a dark room with the Wizard is holding a candle? Candles have low illumination and in fact, the images might leave the illumination area of the candle unless the images too emitted light. This would be counter to the Mirror Image spells indication that you cannot tell the difference between the images.

What if you were to create the illusion of a mirror in a normal, well-lit room? I think you would see yourself in the mirror. You rogue trying to sneak up on you and backstab you would see himself and you in the mirror (and assume you saw him). You would not, however, see the rogue. Nor would you see the spot of gravy on your chin if you didn't already know it was there.

Now here, this does not make sense.

Why would the Rogue see the front of your face if you cannot see his face?

Again, you are attributing mental capabilities to illusions that they just do not have.

"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.)"


I think you are having a real tough time understanding that Figments and Glamers (the vast majority of illusions) have absolutely no mental capabilities in and of themselves at all. They are purely visual in nature.


Let me give you a real world example. If you are on a rafting or a hiking trip and the guide points out a rock formation that looks like a horse, you tend to get two possibilities:

1) A person sees it and it does look like a horse (or he can at least understand how someone else sees a horse, but it might not really look like a horse to him).

2) A person cannot see a horse in that rock formation, even though he keeps staring at it.

Why is it that some people see the horse and some do not? It's due to pattern recognition. Or, one person looks at a cloud and sees a face and another sees a house.

That's the easiest way to adjudicate illusions (i.e. Figments and Glamers). Everyone sees the exact same thing, but some people notice a problem with it (i.e. make their will save) and notice that it is not quite right, and other people do not notice anything (i.e. fail their will save). To those who fail the save, the illusion looks like the intent of the creator of the illusion.

Think of a painting. A painting can look somewhat real, but when compared to a real photograph, it is obvious that it is a painting. Think of Figments and Glamers as very good paintings that the magic puts into space.

And, the idea of illusions in the game at all can probably be derived (through literature) from the concept of optical illusions in real life.


PS. On the mirror example, low levels illusions could probably not do this since the illusion has to change to correspond to triggers in the room. In fact, I think even powerful illusions would be hard to pull off a mirror since a caster controlling the change wouldn't be able to make it seem like angle x for one character, angle y for another character, etc. The image would always be the same for all characters, regardless of their angle to the mirror. I think you would have to create a brand new very high level Figment spell to create the illusion of a mirror that actually works.