Silent Image of Obscuring Mist

[Jack Simth]

Ah thank you. Ooh that's a really cool idea, which even makes sense from a logic perspective, and not just a rules one.. yay.

Gotta keep that in mind.

You're welcome.

Suddenly I'm curious: Which aspect? The people shooting arrows back at you getting a save to see through the mist, the illusionary mist tactic in the first place, or something I missed?

 

[SadisticFishing]

Bit of the whole thing. An illusionary cloud that your party can see through because they know it's illusion.

If one of the attackers told the rest that it were an illusion, would that be considered "proof"? Because it seems like they'd need to do more than just look at it and think "it's an illusion" to see through it...

 

[takasi]

Bit of the whole thing. An illusionary cloud that your party can see through because they know it's illusion.

If one of the attackers told the rest that it were an illusion, would that be considered "proof"? Because it seems like they'd need to do more than just look at it and think "it's an illusion" to see through it...

I would think it would be proof enough that the illusionist told them he created it. If they wanted more, he could concentrate to move it around. "Here, I'm make it look like an umber hulk..." Do that before combat every time and you should be all set.

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were questioning the illusionists proof.

An attacker saying it's an illusion isn't proof, it's merely an accusation. The others get a will save with a +4 per the rules.

 

[phindar]

I wouldn't give the pcs an auto-save, although if the illusionist sets it up in advance of the ambush, they'd be able to take as much time as they needed to see through the illusion. In combat though, they'd have to make the roll (with a +4 if they knew it was coming). This is one of the most powerful uses of a 1st level spell out there, you can give your team total concealment versus the enemy and suffer no modifiers on your side. That's a pretty big advantage for a 1st level slot.

Typically, I rule it that illusions have to be of physical objects, so illusions of fog and darkness wouldn't work. However, you can make an illusion of a brick wall that does functionally the same thing as this idea (and that's a pretty nasty way to set up an ambush in a dungeon).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My take on it would be that the illusionist telling the party members it's an illusion would be a saving throw with the +4 bonus. It would not count as definite proof. On the other hand, a party member or bad guy making the spellcraft check to recognize the spell as it was cast (DC 16) would count as incontrovertible evidence. (And, if a bad guy made the spellcraft check, he could tell his allies it's an illusion granting an immediate save at a +4 bonus just like the illusionist can do for his allies).

Further things that would count as interaction with the illusion:
A. Being subjected to attacks that come from inside the illusionary mist where they would not appear to have line of sight. A real obscuring mist would prevent creatures from seeing out unless they were at the edge and were likewise able to be seen.

Things that would count as incontrovertible proof that the illusion is such:
Entering the cloud or making a melee attack into it. Real obscuring mist is damp and has substance. A silent image of an obscuring mist is neither. (This could be good for the PCs since it means that a lot of them will have incontrovertible proof that the mist is illusionary from the moment of casting).

 

[takasi]

My Things that would count as incontrovertible proof

By the rules it does not say that the proof has to be incontrovertible. That's an interesting houserule though. I am interested in knowing how to officially interpret it, as this is an RPGA character.

With the wall example above, if a party attacks from behind an illusionary wall that is not built to have arrows coming from it (murderholes) then observers do not need a saving throw:

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. "

Any proof will do. Can anyone claim that illusionist saying "The mist is an illusion, watch as I make it form into the shape of a bird" is NOT proof? This can be done before combat, or if an illusionist wanted to do this in the middle of combat they could have message up beforehand and whisper it to his comrades.

As for whether the object has to be solid or not, here is the text from silent image: "This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you." Nothing stating it has to be solid. phindar said he would rule it that way, but I wanted to point this out to others (especially those at an RPGA table).

 

[takasi]

Entering the cloud or making a melee attack into it. Real obscuring mist is damp and has substance. A silent image of an obscuring mist is neither.

Well, technically there is no rule that says the misty vapor is substantial enough to have a tactile sensation. There is also no rule that says it doesn't.

Hypersmurf, since this is your most common Silent Image, how did your table handle it?

 

[borc killer]

There is absolutely no reason in the world why the illusionist does not take a free action to make a coded hand signal right before he casts this spell in combat so that the party knows it is an illusion. Unless you assume the party is working against one another or have never worked together before. If they have never worked together then before combat he has got to tell them about it in some way like “if the orcs are behind this door the first spell I cast will be an illusion of some fog so just ignore it.” Honestly, it is not rocket science.

There are all kinds of down sides to this as well, if he is invis then they don’t see it for one and maybe the BBG is scrying and figures it out with a since motive check. Heck you could even have the PCs make the check every time to if you wanted… that might be a good way around it using some rules.

As for the bad guys getting a check… I think they have to move into the fog or try and touch it. But I am interested to see what HyperSmurf does for this as well.

 

[Mistwell]

Further things that would count as interaction with the illusion:
A. Being subjected to attacks that come from inside the illusionary mist where they would not appear to have line of sight. A real obscuring mist would prevent creatures from seeing out unless they were at the edge and were likewise able to be seen.

Interaction requires an action on your part, or the illusion directly interacting with you. Merely being attacked from within an illusion (and not by the illusion itself) isn't interaction with the illusion itself, though it might count as proof.

But, I do not think it is proof, as there are spells in the spell compendium that provide a cloudy cover that the caster can see out of but others cannot, and abilities and feats that allow people to ignore some cover and/or concealment, and you CAN attack from behind concealment, you just stand a much larger miss chance. In other words, it's not proof.

Things that would count as incontrovertible proof that the illusion is such:
Entering the cloud or making a melee attack into it. Real obscuring mist is damp and has substance. A silent image of an obscuring mist is neither. (This could be good for the PCs since it means that a lot of them will have incontrovertible proof that the mist is illusionary from the moment of casting).

This is precisely the kind of situation that grants a saving throw to disbelive, and not proof. That IS the kind of interaction they are talking about. You don't automatically notice some fog isn't damp! But you MIGHT notice. Which is why interacting grants a save.

I think, if people believe silent image is too powerful, they should house rule it to a higher level rather than trying to twist the rules to nerf it. Your using a bomb to acomplish what could be done with a hammer. Your radical nerfing of this spell by tinkering with the intepretations of the illusion detection rules in general has ramifications for dozens of other spells, and consequences you do not intend. Let the interaction and proof rules stand as they are, and deal with this particular spell with a house rule if it's really bugging you.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I'm thinking that moving into it (or a melee attack) would count as interacting, same as using a standard action to examine it. I don't think ranged attacks into or out of it would cause a save. I think the same rules would apply for a wall as the fog, fwiw.

I also don't see an issue with the autosave, but I could see a DM restricting it to a +4 save each time it's encountered. This would keep it's use marginal as the barbarian would be blinded a quarter of the times you tried it.