Is an invisilble wizard's projected image invisible?

[lottrbacchus]

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.

I have to disagree with your disagreement.

Since the RAW doesn't say either way, both sides would be equally entitled to say that the opposite interpretation is reading too much into the description. I mean, if I read a rule one way and someone else reads it another, how can you say who is reading too much into it (relativity!)

Also, Hyp made a key point above, and perhaps to add to that- if the spell didn't carry any functioning illusions with it, how could it look like you if you were using disguise self or whatever?

 

[Zad]

How about this then: What if the wizard cast mirror image? Would the wizard have duplicates? Would the projected image? Would they both?

I would say the duplicates appear around the wizard, not the projected image. Granted, MI is a Illusion (Figment) whereas Invis is Illusion (Glammer) but I think it's a relevant example (both range: personal in this context, etc).

Don't get me wrong - I agree that there is miles of room for interpretation here. But my interpretation is that there's no basis to believe the invisibility spell would impact the image's visibility and it's too powerful of an impact to assume it would apply. I would like to think anything that powerful would be mentioned.

There are lots of companion questions which are equally open to interpretation - what if the wizard is shapechanged, what if he changes appearance after he casts the spell, etc. But since we can't definitively answer those either, they don't help. I think it boils down to the fact that I can't find anything that supports one interpretation or the other, and apparently nobody else did, so it comes down to good ol' DM judgment.

If that's the question, then I don't think we have an answer. If the question is "how would you interpret it?" then we do.

 

[lottrbacchus]

Excellent response, Zad, and I agree that we basically are just airing our interpretations as opposed to presenting definitive rules.

I actually just erased what I was about to say, because it requires more thought. Unfortunately, that more thought is going to have to come later, as it is getting beddy-by boz time here...