Illusions

[James the Newbie]

I've been thinking about illusions for a while, my interest in spells tends to shift. I've a few questions that the wizards site doesn't touch on.

For silent image (and as an extension minor and major image)

1) Would you be able to form a figment of two people provided they are connected. i.e holding hands, so long as they don't stop touching, and count it as one image.

2) Can you form parts of a figment underground?

2.5) Question 1 and 2 link, is it cheesy or creative to want to use silent/minor/major image to link many different human and monster figments under ground with illusory strings or shapes to create truly grand illusions. This illusion could be classes as an illusion of a strange construct, or a bizarre abberation, personally I think its reasonable, but when your in the players shoe's a lot seems reasonable, granted with was meant to be one of the most free form spells, even if this pushes that a bit.

I can think of many illusions I would want to tailor, and creating the perfect trap to deal with an enemy, pinning them or wasting their resources seems like a lot of fun.

Some ideas of things I would keep underground are. Portals, monsters, fires, walls, sheets of ice, blackness, blades, tendrils, furniture, specific visual spell effects, illusory footprints as if there was another invisible being there and boxes with treasure such as books, coins, art, spell components or gems which the person may be after.

3) Can you create an illusion of a giant chunk of pure blackness which would stop your opponents seeing, effectively blinding them, and give them a 50% miss chance until they hit a will save. Since you would see through it, it would be a good use of silent image. After all you and your allies could still see.

4) Can you create a figment of a mirror, if so would the reflection work by itself or would you have to animately copy what is in the mirror (Very challenging). Would figments of mirrors and holy symbols repel vampires. Could vampires enter an illusory home? After all its still a building.

For Figments to Include speech

5)

This spell functions like silent image, except that sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect.

Clearly this is meant to be a very inclusive figment spell, but it still doesn't say speech is included, are there any figment spells that include speech?

For ghost sound

6) A lions roar can be heard 5 miles away, and so is incredibly loud. Do you think the creators intended to let level 4 wizards make their voice this loud with a level 1 spell, or do you think that it was a simple case of them not expecting players to think so literally/to have this snip bit of knowledge.

 

[Greenfield]

Why worry about "threads" connecting them? Why not include a thin layer of floor as part of the illusion? At that point you could include as many people or things in the area as you like, so long as they're standing or walking on the ground.

That being said, if I were the DM I'd probably ask what type of "object, creature or force" you were emulating that could appear as a crowd. And when you couldn't think of one, I'd say "No". We call that "Dispel BS".

Can you create an illusion of someone who is partially underground? As in, half buried in the sand or mud? Sure, why not.

The illusion of a mirror will look exactly like a mirror. I'd let it work like one too, otherwise any illusion that included a shiny surface of any kind would be busted.

Can you create an illusion of pitch black? Sure. And yes, you and your allies could easily see it for what it was, since you know enough to ask for that Will Save, and get a +4 bonus on it as well.

I'm not one of those people who gives victims of Illusions a Will Save each round until they see through it, any more than I'd let the victim of a Charm spell Save until they succeeded.

In fact, as the rules suggest, I don't give them a Save at all unless they "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion". Simply put, there has to be some reason for them to suspect an Illusion.

Now the pitch black Darkness you talked about doesn't exist as a magical effect in D&D 3.5, so that would be suspect in and of itself. If you used an illusion of a different obscuring effect, such as an illusory Wall of Fog, you'd stand a better chance.

Now, would a Vampire recoil from an illusory mirror or holy symbol?

I've heard many people argue that undead are immune to illusions in general, though I don't know if that's actually in the rules. (While the SRD makes many references to "Undead Traits" for various monsters, the copy I have doesn't actually list what they are).

In any case, presuming that the Vampire wasn't immune, it would depend on what class of Illusion you were creating. Simple figments specifically don't include any effect other than visual, so while the Vampire might see a piece of wood or metal shaped like whatever holy symbol you were emulating, they could tell that it wasn't consecrated.

I mean, the holy symbol of the Celtic deity Dagda is a pot or kettle. Can you imagine how it would be if a Vampire couldn't enter a kitchen? How stupid would that be?

 

[James the Newbie]

Lots of good help there, nice idea with the fog cloud, of course I think being inside an illusion warrens interacting with it. Only creatures with no wisdom are immune to illusions according to the wizards website.

I defiantly like the thin layer of floor idea a great deal, the issue being that the person is then standing in (and so interacting with) the illusion. But from a distance a much more effective design

As for what could copy a crowd, a giant animated piece of artwork that is all connected so is one object doesn't really seem like a push, after all illusions are akin to clay models when you consider them forms of art.

I think you are right about the holy symbol needing to be consecrated, although a vampire being incapable of entering a kitchen is pretty amusing.

[sadly I cant exp you at the moment]

 

[Greenfield]

The answer of, "I'm creating an illusion of a something-or-other that looks just like this" won't really cut it at most tables that would ask the question.

You're trying to wriggle around a hard and fast limit on the spell, and most DM's will find a way to wriggle a "No" out, somehow.

Old school, for an illusion to be blown you had to interact with it, and it had to fail to react appropriately. I'm pretty sure that phrase is in the rules, on at least one of the figment spells, in fact.

Q: What's the "appropriate" reaction for a cloud of fog when you step inside? When you throw a pebble at it or swing a sword through it?
A: To stay where it was and continue being a cloud of fog.

Now the better approach is to use this trick to cover your archers and ranged spell casters. They can shoot out without a problem, but anyone shooting in can't see a target.

 

[The Red King]

I wouldn't give you a fast "no", but I would make you explain how several figures are an "object, creature or force" as said before. But if you wanted to say you were emulating a painting, sculpture, or other form of art, and you did this all the time, I'd say yes. But remember..... anything you can do, and evil NPC can do to you.

 

[James the Newbie]

I appreciate constructive criticisms, which you do well Greenfield. My DM is a really nice and trusting guy, and so lets most things slide (probably this if I just asked him). Because of this I make a big efforts not to push an unbalanced or overly cheesy mechanic, which this may be. So when I put an argument here, if you look at it, id appreciate it because your posts seem to consistently be within the rules.

As for The Red King, I take the same view as you on this, and am a big supporter of 'Whatever the player can do the DM can do, but better'. And I appreciate you supporting the idea.

My personal thought process is in these steps

1) can you first create a crowd of mannequins attached together by string or through the ground and call it a piece of art
A) You could create any object you can think of so long as it fits within the size of the illusion and is a single object.

2) So long as its one thing are we free to add details to the mannequins to make them look perfectly human and still have this piece of art work exist
A) Its an illusion, so long as you can imagine it, it can be made.

3) Can you move the image in ways it couldn't normally move, such as making a mannequin walk
A) If the viewer didn't automatically disbelieve it, the would be entitled to a save, but it is your illusion so there is no reason you should not be capable of moving it as you see fit

4) If the user wasn't aware that physics where being messed with would they still be entitled to a save, such as if they assumed the mannequin made to perfectly resemble a human walked
A) I don't think they would notice anything is off, because if they observed it closely enough they would be entitled to a save anyway, so they shouldn't be as it is not acting in a way they don't see fit.

For a human of 22 intelligence, I think creating such a piece of work is possible, I'm personally still in favour of it, but id defiantly like to hear what you think.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I wouldn't give you a fast "no", but I would make you explain how several figures are an "object, creature or force" as said before.

A mob can be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Dandu]

A mob can also be the object of one's hatred.

 

[Greenfield]

I'm personally guilty of twisting more than a few rules, so I'm not in any position to complain.

And I really do understand your concern about pushing a DM who is all to willing to let you have your way. It seriously takes the challenge out, and thus the fun.

Technically, you could create a mob of people connected together by the simple fact that they're a mob, pressed into bodily contact.

In fact, I've done exactly this. (You'll find an example in one the adventure stories I posted to the Story Hour forum. I think it's in the http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/324045-curse-darkness-vi-valley-sun.html thread. )

This was a case where I wasn't thinking about the limits, and instead just used the illusion to create "crowd cover", as a sort of Mirror Image - Mass.

And it's because of exactly that potential that I'm of the feeling that a DM should say no.

The progression you laid out is entirely reasonable. But add in two steps and, while it remains legal and reasonable, it becomes horribly abusive.

1) All the mannequins look like various members of the party.
2) Allow room in the crowd for the real party members, so the enemy can't tell which is real (and shooting at them) and which is the illusion.

The differences between this use and the fog cloud:

1) Your party members don't need to make a Save v this. They can see out just fine, first round and attack or act without delay.
2) The enemy has much worse than a 50/50 miss chance.

So while the scenario you propose may be technically legal (in that you can rationalize a way within the spell's limits), and you can certainly get a semi-pushover DM to approve it, the potential for abuse may rob you of some fun by removing challenge from the game.

Oh, and technically, a dozen or so mannequins is a dozen or so objects, connecting threads notwithstanding.

 

[James the Newbie]

Kinda, if you dispel one of the illusory clones you dispel them all, as its one illusion. So I wouldn't worry about that.

I could acept the 12 mannequins are seperate objects, but an argument could be made a single guard consists of
1) a body
2) armour and all the components that make it up
3) A weapon
4) A shield
And other than 'its different' its hard to pinpoint how. Making it a fairly solid argument

A better argument is you can create field of flowers or thousands of blades of grass. Some may prefer x-million grains of sand. Each certainly a separate object.

A DM could dismiss it, and every player toys with the rules a little. I quite like the idea of illusions working like this, so I will talk to my DM about it and see how he feels. I will try to present a balanced argument xD

On a side note, all players fudge the rules a little, but most have stricter DM's.