Dark illusory room

[KarinsDad]

Ah of course, the books are wrong! I should have guessed. When there is a conflict between KD and the books, we just need to apply common sense and we will realize that KD is always right. I envy the happy world in which you dwell.

Well, either the figment description is wrong, or the Dancing Lights and Mirror Image and Minor Image and Major Image, etc. spells are all wrong.

All of those spells make real effects. My research illustrated that. Your research illustrated one obviously incorrect phrase in one place in the book.

And after your initial uncalled for smart ass comment of me doing little research, you sure sound like an idiot when you again attack me instead of my research on the topic.

But, when small minded people are proven wrong, I guess continuing to attack someone is their only resort.

Now go away and let the big boys play. You're dismissed.

 

[0-hr]

You are, of course, welcome to employ whatever house rules you deem necessary; and there is even a special forum where you can go an discuss such ideas. Perhaps you, and your tremendous ego, should use that venue to rail against the written rules and espouse your "common sense" approach to game customization.

As for this particular issue, the rules are as clear as your intractability and so I will not deign to continue. The last word, as I'm sure you cannot help but speak, is yours.

My apologies to those others who had to wade through this unpleasantness in order to garner any real information.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

ok.. to make both of you seem silly.....

KD: both dancing lights and continual flame have been changed to Evocation (light)... invest in the second printing.

KR: you also need to invest in the second printing. here's the update "Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements." they took out the "illuminated darkness."


And to thumb my nose at both of ya for being beligerant to each other......

"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." PH 158. Technically AIR is something, but figments can still make it seem like a mirror image.. blah blah...

its easier (an better) to say the system is not 100% consistant instead of trying to make others feel bad.

joe b.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: well

ok.. to make both of you seem silly.....

Come on JGB, it would never happen.

KD: both dancing lights and continual flame have been changed to Evocation (light)... invest in the second printing.

Actually, I do have the second printing. Unfortunately, I pulled that information off the SRD which they have NOT kept up to date. I knew about Continual Flame, but not Dancing Lights. Thanks for the update.

As for figments (and glamers for that matter) not generating light, that is lame. Figments can generate sound or thermal qualities or tactile qualities (all typically evocation effects), but not light? So, an illusionary bonfire can give off sound and heat, but not light and to see it, you must bring over a torch? With this type of thinking, there is no way to create an illusionary bonfire in the game (at least with core rule spells). Light is just another type of energy like sound and heat. There is no reason to think that a magical effect that could allow you to see anything could not allow you to see light.

The only main type of illusion that can create semi-real effects are shadows. But, I do not know of any core conjuration or evocation spells that let you bring forth a bonfire, wood, ashes, heat, fire, etc., so it’d probably be tough to use a shadow spell to do it. Maybe there is a shadow spell that I’m not thinking of that could do this, but if so, it escapes me at the moment (at least from core rules).

So, if you want an illusion of a Glowing Sword (or bonfire) where no object already exists, you are basically stuck with Figments. No other illusion type really fits the bill.

If you want an illusion of a Glowing Sword (or bonfire) where an object already exists, you are basically stuck with Glamers.

Finally, the definition of Pattern supports that Figments can give off light:

“Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see”

Since virtually every pattern gives off light (Color Spray, Hypnotic Pattern, Rainbow Pattern), it would seem that it’s image creation capability by default includes giving off light. If that is like a figments ability to create an image as per this sentence, then it implies that a figment could be used to emulate the visual portion (but not the mind affecting portion) of a pattern spell, including the light. I could use Silent Image to emulate the light portion of Color Spray because both spells create an image that others can see. Nothing anywhere indicates that you have to be in a lit location to see the Silent Image spell, but not the Color Spray one.

And to thumb my nose at both of ya for being beligerant to each other......

"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." PH 158. Technically AIR is something, but figments can still make it seem like a mirror image.. blah blah...

Well maybe. Or, maybe the magic of the illusion displaces the air (as opposed to surrounding it). Lot’s of different interpretations out there that could still follow the rules. Sometimes it is not the rules that are inconsistent, it's the interpretations.

its easier (an better) to say the system is not 100% consistant instead of trying to make others feel bad.

I couldn’t agree more. If KR wouldn’t have lashed out with two back to back unprovoked set of comments, I wouldn’t have told him off.

And, I appreciate you trying to smooth the waters JGB, but I doubt it will help much in this case.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: well

If KR wouldn’t have lashed out

Just for the record folks, he's not talkin' about me, no matter what my username might suggest.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

one interpretation

IMO, the correct adjudication is that figments can't illuminate darkness, but they can still appear to be light sources. The illusory light appears to be real light, but doesn't illuminate (as stated in 1st printing). An illusion of a bonfire in a dark room would appear as a bonfire surrounded by darkness, like an cut-out image on a black TV screen. True, such an illusion is not particularly useful, and may lead to strange visual situations (e.g., if someone walks in front of the illusory light source). But I think it complies with the general concept that a figment should not create a real effect.

As always, YMMV.

-RedShirt

 

[0-hr]

Re: well

ok.. to make both of you seem silly.....

That's interesting about the 2nd printing. I wish they'd either update the SRD, or add the changes to the errata. But anyway, thanks for the info!

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: one interpretation

But I think it complies with the general concept that a figment should not create a real effect.

The two reasons why I do not prescribe to this theory is that:

1) Figments (and glamers) can produce real effects. They can create sound, heat, cold, etc. What they cannot do is damage (unless you are talking a Shadow Illusion). Hence, a figment bonfire might create heat, but if you stick your hand in it, you are reacting with it, will know that it is an illusion, and will not get damaged. I think the concept of cannot create real effects grew out of the concept of cannot do damage.

2) As per your bonfire on a black background example, there would be no way to create certain typical and useful illusions, so why make it restrictive? Why say that magic can Teleport you around the world, but cannot create a fake image of a bonfire? Why restrict Illusionists from having reasonable magic when you do not do that for other schools of magic?

I think the reasonableness line is that they should not create unreasonable effects for the level of the spell. So, you cannot create as much light with a Silent Image as with a Major Image. Unfortunately, the book doesn't say anything on the topic like they do a little bit with sound, so it is up to DM discretion. But, I would have no problem with:

Silent Image: light of a candle
Minor Image: light of a torch
Major Image: light of a hooded lantern

Of course, this would be a house rule, but I think it is reasonable given that Illusions are one of the least documented and least understood types of magic in the game.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: well

That's interesting about the 2nd printing. I wish they'd either update the SRD, or add the changes to the errata. But anyway, thanks for the info!

yeah, i have the first printing and my wife has the 2nd..... it sucks. i have to ask to use her book all the time..


joe b.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Re: Re: one interpretation

Figments (and glamers) can produce real effects. They can create sound, heat, cold, etc.

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.

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. 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.

Of course, this would be a house rule, but I think it is reasonable given that Illusions are one of the least documented and least understood types of magic in the game.

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.

-RedShirt