Is an invisilble wizard's projected image invisible?

[zoroaster100]

One of my players posed this question to me in preparing for the final encounters in a 20 level campaign path: if he casts projected image while invisible, will his image be invisible as well, yet still allow him to cast spells through it?

I'd like to solicit opinions of the learned folks on this board before making the call.

 

[rgard]

One of my players posed this question to me in preparing for the final encounters in a 20 level campaign path: if he casts projected image while invisible, will his image be invisible as well, yet still allow him to cast spells through it?

I'd like to solicit opinions of the learned folks on this board before making the call.

There's nothing in the text that says you can't cast it and still have the ability to cast through the image.

I used this the way your player wants to back in 1E with my Magic-User. It's fun. The NPCs will have to cast True Seeing or See Invisible just to find the image.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Particle_Man]

Actually, the wizard casting project image will also need the ability to see invisible. Otherwise, since he can't see the image, he doesn't have line of sight to the image, and the projected image spell is broken.

 

[Arkhandus]

No. Invisibility specifically does not block light. Illusions project light and false images.

Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. Invisibility specifically does not block light. Illusions project light and false images.

A projected image of a person is not a source of light. If you cast Project Image in a dark room, someone without darkvision won't be able to see it.

-Hyp.

 

[zoroaster100]

Thanks for the responses. I guess it is not a clear consensus, but unless someone convinces me otherwise I think I will rule that the image is invisible if the caster is invisible.

 

[rgard]

Thanks for the responses. I guess it is not a clear consensus, but unless someone convinces me otherwise I think I will rule that the image is invisible if the caster is invisible.

Obviously I think that is a good call!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[lottrbacchus]

Well, since illusions specifically work on the image (it can cast them on itself), it seems reasonable to assume that any illusions working on the caster would also be in effect on the image.

I don't think the caster would need to see invisible. The SRD I just checked said "line of effect", not sight, so "It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight."

 

[Zad]

I have to disagree here. There's nothing in the spell description that states or implies the image would be invisible if the caster was.

"You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to create a quasi-real, illusory version of yourself. The projected image looks, sounds, and smells like you but is intangible. The projected image mimics your actions (including speech) unless you direct it to act differently (which is a move action)."

So the image looks like you. The invisibility spell doesn't modify how you look - it means people can't see you. The spell would not extend to the image and I don't agree that the image would be invisible because you are. There's nothing in the RAW to imply this. If you want to house-rule it of course that's fine, but if you're looking asking what the rules state, I think this is way too much to interpret into the spell description.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The invisibility spell doesn't modify how you look

Yes it does.

"A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

-Hyp.