Let's Discuss Silent Image

[Segev]

Every time I read this spell, I think I know what it does and have ideas on how to use it, but when it comes to actually suggesting uses or using it, myself, I draw a blank. Everything I would want to do with it suddenly seems obviously fake or outside the spell's power and purview.

So, what exactly can you do with it? Obviously, you can't make sounds, but you could augment it with Ghost Sound. Ghost Sound would have to be cast first, of course, since Silent Image is Concentration. How well can a Silent Image match a Ghost Sound? Can Ghost Sound produce intermittent noises, or only relatively constant ones? e.g. how would it do with having a lion roar in time with an image of a lion roaring?

Can Silent Images move? The spell can create images of, amongst other things, creatures, but how active can these be?


What uses have other players found for this spell? What sorts of things seem like good ideas but probably wouldn't work? In theory, it's a bread-and-butter Illusionist spell that has myriad clever uses. In practice, I always find it coming up short. I blame a failure of my imagination to some degree, but also a discomfort with my knowledge of what, exactly, it can do.

[Psyren]

This is a common use, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0892.html) and is particularly handy vs. mindless creatures like undead/constructs.

[Gwendol]

It's good to set up illusionary landscape or building features (doors, not doors, etc).

[Pickford]

Every time I read this spell, I think I know what it does and have ideas on how to use it, but when it comes to actually suggesting uses or using it, myself, I draw a blank. Everything I would want to do with it suddenly seems obviously fake or outside the spell's power and purview.

So, what exactly can you do with it? Obviously, you can't make sounds, but you could augment it with Ghost Sound. Ghost Sound would have to be cast first, of course, since Silent Image is Concentration. How well can a Silent Image match a Ghost Sound? Can Ghost Sound produce intermittent noises, or only relatively constant ones? e.g. how would it do with having a lion roar in time with an image of a lion roaring?

Can Silent Images move? The spell can create images of, amongst other things, creatures, but how active can these be?


What uses have other players found for this spell? What sorts of things seem like good ideas but probably wouldn't work? In theory, it's a bread-and-butter Illusionist spell that has myriad clever uses. In practice, I always find it coming up short. I blame a failure of my imagination to some degree, but also a discomfort with my knowledge of what, exactly, it can do.

Remember that time in Superman 2 when Lex Luthor and Otis escape by fooling the guards with a hologram of them playing chess?

Silent image is just like that. Ideally, the person/thing you're fooling is at a distance (and thus unlikely to wonder immediately why they can't hear anything).

Good examples: A snoozing scary monster...an Ooze (they don't make noise!), guards where there are no guards, a wall/hole/large impassable object where no such thing exists.

Scenario: You are fleeing guards, and turn down a hallway with 3 doors. Cast silent image of a wall over one, and go through it, leaving another door open a crack. The guards, unless they know the building very well, would pursue you through the open door and give you extra time to escape.

That one use alone seems pretty worthwhile. Plus, it's a level 1 spell, so I wouldn't expect 'too' much more out of it.

Segev: The spell description is only three sentences, the last of which answers your question about moving the image.

[Zeb]

Nothing says go away like a silent image of something scary that is also auto silent, joystealer, wraith, shadow, ghost.

Plus since they usually can have things pass thru them see if you can make it so they need something better than just a plain attack to get a save.

Same if you silent image up some fog cloud, cloud-kill etc. Things that lack substance but people will avoid.

[Segev]

While it says you can "move the image within the space of the spell," that still opens questions as to what, precisely, is fixed about the image and what can be added/taken away.

Can a wall or creature hit by a real arrow have an illusory arrow quiver in place where it was hit, in an effort to maintain the deception? Can an illusory "wizard" appear to cast a spell and "polymorph" into a "red dragon?"

Can an illusory girl walk over an illusory field of flowers and pick one? Could an illusory girl walk up to an illusory pot of flowers and pick one? In either case, could she toss it to the feet of a (real) NPC who is, hopefully, fooled?

[Gemini476]

Have you considered making an inanimate, inaudible object, such as a wall or fake floor? The fake floor over a trap is a classic.
Although that is more for GMs.

A PC might be able to make an illusory wall to hide behind, or fake traps to make foes avoid areas. Caltrops, for instance. Or tripwires.

You could also pull a heist and replace the stolen object with an illusion, buying you some time.

[Segev]

Hm. Interestingly, you could put cracks in a glass case, but not a hole. Because a hole would require making the "missing" glass invisible. That is, it would require suppressing the reflections from it, which I don't think Silent Image can do.


I imagine a mirror would be one of the least convincing object-images one could produce; it would require picture-perfect left-right-inverted reproduction of everything it faced. Including things the caster can't see, like his own face.

[Psyren]

Hm. Interestingly, you could put cracks in a glass case, but not a hole. Because a hole would require making the "missing" glass invisible. That is, it would require suppressing the reflections from it, which I don't think Silent Image can do.

You could simply layer an image of what the glass would look like with a hole in it over that portion - i.e. if the hole shows the wall more clearly beyond the glass, have the image include a circle of clear, distant wall.



I imagine a mirror would be one of the least convincing object-images one could produce; it would require picture-perfect left-right-inverted reproduction of everything it faced. Including things the caster can't see, like his own face.

Plenty of artists are capable of drawing themselves on demand though. If you can picture it well enough in your mind, you can make an illusion of it. I might require some kind of check (Disguise maybe) to know what you look like though.

[Story]

In my most recent session, I created an illusory Erinye to distract the guards (and explain away the guard that was already dead) so we could sneak away. I guess they were too scared to notice that it wasn't actually attacking.

[Segev]

You could simply layer an image of what the glass would look like with a hole in it over that portion - i.e. if the hole shows the wall more clearly beyond the glass, have the image include a circle of clear, distant wall.Except that to do it convincingly, you'd need to actually put the image as a 3D one behind the plane of the glass, not as an overlay on top of it. An overlay on top is a 2D image, and would be obvious from any angle other than the one chosen.

To make it "fill the space" behind and not have the actual glass in the way, you'd have to be able to make the glass itself invisible.

Unless "it's magic!" can cause different perspectives to see different angles of the same illusion, when the illusion itself is a "screen." In which case, you could use it as "invisibility" for yourself and your party by projecting an image of the space you're standing in on top of you, sans you.

[Darrin]

Hm. Interestingly, you could put cracks in a glass case, but not a hole. Because a hole would require making the "missing" glass invisible. That is, it would require suppressing the reflections from it, which I don't think Silent Image can do.


Silent image produces a "figment", which creates false sensations rather than changing an existing sensation. It can't be cast "on top of" an existing sensation (that is, an existing object/creature), as that would be considered a "glamer". There are a few glamers that can change the appearance of a creature (disguise self, seeming, and veil), but nothing in Core that can change the appearance of an existing object. For that, you need deceptive facade (Complete Mage).



I imagine a mirror would be one of the least convincing object-images one could produce; it would require picture-perfect left-right-inverted reproduction of everything it faced. Including things the caster can't see, like his own face.

The spell description doesn't call for any distinction about complexity or details the caster can't see. That's taken care of with the Will save: if the observer looks into a mirror created via silent image and fails his Will save, he sees an entirely convincing reflection (or at least believes that he does).

[Psyren]

Except that to do it convincingly, you'd need to actually put the image as a 3D one behind the plane of the glass, not as an overlay on top of it. An overlay on top is a 2D image, and would be obvious from any angle other than the one chosen.

Agreed - looking it at it from any other angle except the one visualized by the illusionist would spoil it and either force a will save or break the spell immediately. But there's plenty of ways to make an observer look at the thing you want him to look at - magicians do it all the time.



Unless "it's magic!" can cause different perspectives to see different angles of the same illusion, when the illusion itself is a "screen." In which case, you could use it as "invisibility" for yourself and your party by projecting an image of the space you're standing in on top of you, sans you.

The illusion is a cube, not a screen. so you can actually do this - i.e. form an illusion of everything in your square (and adjacent squares), but without the people in it/them. But this has limited use practically, because nobody can change positions even slightly or talk, including you.

[Segev]

I'm not so sure that's what the "will disbelief" does. In order to even get a disbelief save, they have to "interact" with the illusion and have reason to doubt it. If they make the save at that point, they can see through it as if it were not there, while remaining aware of it as a faint outline that lets them have an idea what others are seeing.

So I think the illusion does, in fact, have to be as good as you want it to be; if they see it and it looks wrong, they get the save.

If they see it and it looks right, until they interact with it in some way (or are flat-out told "it's an illusion"), they don't get a disbelief save.

[Psyren]

I'm not so sure that's what the "will disbelief" does. In order to even get a disbelief save, they have to "interact" with the illusion and have reason to doubt it. If they make the save at that point, they can see through it as if it were not there, while remaining aware of it as a faint outline that lets them have an idea what others are seeing.

So I think the illusion does, in fact, have to be as good as you want it to be; if they see it and it looks wrong, they get the save.

If they see it and it looks right, until they interact with it in some way (or are flat-out told "it's an illusion"), they don't get a disbelief save.

This is how I've always understood figments to work, yes.

[Segev]

The illusion is a cube, not a screen. so you can actually do this - i.e. form an illusion of everything in your square (and adjacent squares), but without the people in it/them. But this has limited use practically, because nobody can change positions even slightly or talk, including you.

I don't think the illusion can delete the people from it. Therefore, you'd have to basically overlay obstructive images - screens, or more complex 3D form-fitting films - over the things you want to "edit out." These screens or films or whatever would show images of what's behind them, but again you run into the angle problem.

I suppose you could technically manage it: the spell is magic and if your image is going to project exactly the right illusion from every angle, it could work. But it'd be delicate, and...well, if you can do that, you COULD make a cube whose every face is a "screen" that has that multi-directional illusion. Making everything in a given cube invisible.

I don't think this works, still. You can't remove things with Silent Image; only add. There might be a fair bit you can do with "screens" to add, but you run into 2D image problems.

Yes, the spell makes 3D images, but it can't remove things. So if you need something "behind" the front edge of your overlay, it has to be done the same way artists do with a canvas, rather than allowing you to use a hypotehtical 3D space that doesn't include the thing you're covering up.


In short, "no deleting."

[JusticeZero]

Can an illusory "wizard" appear to cast a spell and "polymorph" into a "red dragon?"
Can an illusory girl walk over an illusory field of flowers and pick one?
Could an illusory girl walk up to an illusory pot of flowers and pick one?
In either case, could she toss it to the feet of a (real) NPC who is, hopefully, fooled?
All of the things mentioned here are inappropriate uses of the spell. You might be able to pull it off, but they are working toward the weaknesses of the effect, not the strengths. Silent image is best used for making inert things that cover up other things. There are a lot of examples of those.

[Nettlekid]

My vote is claiming to have a cavalry of dragons coming to your aid, and then using Silent Image to make a bunch of very small dragons that, from the right angle, look like they're very far away.

[Psyren]

My vote is claiming to have a cavalry of dragons coming to your aid, and then using Silent Image to make a bunch of very small dragons that, from the right angle, look like they're very far away.

I'd use Major Image for distant roars - that should add a bigger circumstance bonus to your Bluff/Intimidate check.

[Segev]

Silent Image does say it creates a creature, force, object, etc. I'm not sure it can make a group of creatures.

[CockroachTeaParty]

My favorite story of using Silent Image well went like this:

The adventurers snuck up on a camp of orcs guarding a place. Two of the orcs were playing a card game. One of the PCs cast a Silent Image of a few extra cards falling out of one of the orc's sleeves. This started a fight, which wound up wiping out all of the orc guards as they killed each other in the brawl.

[Segev]

Another question occurs to me: does a Silent Image cast a real shadow? If it casts an "illusory" shadow, would that illusory shadow prevent something with Light Sensitivity from being Dazzled as long as they didn't make their Disbelief save?

Would the shadow cast by a Silent Image be a valid place for a rogue to initiate a hide check?

In another thread on getting rid of sunlight for Shadowcraft magic, somebody suggested making it rain. Would a Silent Image of overcast clouds just waiting to downpour dim the sunlight sufficiently for this to work?

What happens to a Vampire or Specter who is in the shadow of an illusory outcropping when the sun shines such that, without the illusion, the Vampire or Specter would be in the sun?

Would a party traveling in a dungeon, using a light source to see, be able to use a Silent Image of a wall to hide behind to obscure their light source from passing guards? Would they still be able to see the light shine on the guards, since they don't believe their own illusion? Would the guards (whom we'll assume rely on darkvision rather than carrying a light source with them, for sake of argument) notice that light is shining on them, or would they have to interact with and disbelieve the illusion?

[JusticeZero]

I generally treat a figment as having real opacity. It just seems to work more consistently.

[Psyren]

I would say it can't produce a shadow (or reflection:)


Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can.

An actual shadow would be a "real effect."

And if we think back to fictional/fantasy tropes, noticing something doesn't have a shadow or reflection is a common way for the hero to realize it isn't real.

[Segev]

So the illusion of a cloud to block sunlight would not cast a shadow. Would the sun be visible if you looked directly at the cloud where the sun should be? Would your eyes hurt, or would its artificial "shade" protect you from that?

[Psyren]

So the illusion of a cloud to block sunlight would not cast a shadow. Would the sun be visible if you looked directly at the cloud where the sun should be? Would your eyes hurt, or would its artificial "shade" protect you from that?

I'd say the sun is not visible, but that doesn't mean you're standing in shade or shadow. After all, just because you can't see the light source doesn't mean you're in shadow - invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) + light produces a similar effect.

In other words, it would be just as bright as if you weren't under your illusory cloud, but it still blocks you from actually seeing the sun itself. How does this work? Magic :smalltongue:

[Sith_Happens]

My favorite story of using Silent Image well went like this:

The adventurers snuck up on a camp of orcs guarding a place. Two of the orcs were playing a card game. One of the PCs cast a Silent Image of a few extra cards falling out of one of the orc's sleeves. This started a fight, which wound up wiping out all of the orc guards as they killed each other in the brawl.

That's awesome.

[Segev]

Hm. So going back to the "orc guards using darkvision while on patrol down a dungeon hallway" example, the party hiding behind the illusory wall will have their (foolishly still lit) light source causing the hallway to be lit up, but there will be no visible source for that lighting.

[JusticeZero]

"Real" effects would mean anything other than getting in the way of light. After all, if you want to rules lawyer reflecting or casting a shadow as being "real", reflecting light to be visible in the first place is a "real" effect.

[Psyren]

Hm. So going back to the "orc guards using darkvision while on patrol down a dungeon hallway" example, the party hiding behind the illusory wall will have their (foolishly still lit) light source causing the hallway to be lit up, but there will be no visible source for that lighting.

Exactly, and thus they'd get a will save (if they started scanning the walls.)


"Real" effects would mean anything other than getting in the way of light. After all, if you want to rules lawyer reflecting or casting a shadow as being "real", reflecting light to be visible in the first place is a "real" effect.

Note that this is all just how I'd rule it and my basis for doing so. The whole thing is really up to DM interpretation. Basically, if it's something the players are or can be careless over, I'd err on the side of giving an intelligent observer the will save, plus I look at previous fantasy tropes (e.g. holograms not casting shadows) for guidance.

[Deophaun]

Can a wall or creature hit by a real arrow have an illusory arrow quiver in place where it was hit, in an effort to maintain the deception? Can an illusory "wizard" appear to cast a spell and "polymorph" into a "red dragon?"
While not defined under silent image, it may be indirectly defined under major image:

This spell functions like silent image, except that sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect. While concentrating, you can move the image within the range.

The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.
If the only real difference is that "sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect," then silent image must also be capable of reacting appropriately to attacks.

Hm. Interestingly, you could put cracks in a glass case, but not a hole. Because a hole would require making the "missing" glass invisible. That is, it would require suppressing the reflections from it, which I don't think Silent Image can do.
As Darrin said, changing the appearance of an object is the purview of glamer spells, not figments. So silent image is unable to put illusory cracks in a glass case.

[Snowbluff]

Silent images have an affect light in the mind of the beholder, because they can be seen. The more you know about light and physics, the more likely shadows are to pop up.:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Silent images have an affect light in the mind of the beholder, because they can be seen. The more you know about light and physics, the more likely shadows are to pop up.:smalltongue:

Please think of the catgirls :smallfrown:

[Sith_Happens]

Please think of the catgirls :smallfrown:

Are there really catgirls, or did you just fail your save versus a Silent Image?:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Are there really catgirls, or did you just fail your save versus a Silent Image?:smalltongue:

I can hear them shrieking in fear, so it's at least a Major Image :smalltongue:

(Or maybe there's a Ghost Sound. Hey, there's an interesting thought - how can you differentiate a Silent Image + Ghost Sound vs. a Major Image?

[Snowbluff]

Please think of the catgirls :smallfrown:

No! Can I fix this by establishing plausibility of their existence through biology? D:

[Deophaun]

Hey, there's an interesting thought - how can you differentiate a Silent Image + Ghost Sound vs. a Major Image?
Spellcraft

[Segev]

I'm not sure Ghost Sounds are programmable to match the Silent Image's actions. So they'd have to be germain and generic.

[Snowbluff]

I'm not sure Ghost Sounds are programmable to match the Silent Image's actions. So they'd have to be germain and generic.
Silent Image is specifically able to be augmented by Ghost Sound, but Ghost Sound's sound is unable to be changed after it is cast. You could make an image of someone talking with a matching speech, though.

[JusticeZero]

I adjudicate figments as thus: Illusion is, more or less by definition, heavy on the manipulation of Shadow (big S). Shadow materials probably cast shadows because, well, "shadow". The easiest way to handle it is that an image spell is conjuring Shadow stuff which is "real" to light, but has no material properties because it is being imposed on the interaction between what is basically the elemental plane of light and dark.

[Psyren]

Not all illusions incorporate Shadow though, and that includes Silent Image (which lacks the Shadow descriptor.)

[Deophaun]

I adjudicate figments as thus: Illusion the shadow subschool of illusion is, more or less by definition, heavy on the manipulation of Shadow (big S).
Fixed it for you.

[JusticeZero]

Sure, but the methods will have similarities. Anyways it's just easier to say "It's opaque" than to figure out any of the odd interactions from not doing so.

[Psyren]

It is opaque, but that doesn't necessarily mean it casts shadows/reflections. After all, vampires are presumably opaque too. (This of course is one of the many, many problems of trying to mix physics and D&D.)

[John Longarrow]

Top ten uses I've seen for silent image

1) Create walls where there are none. After all, if wizards can just summon a stone wall out of thin air, why wound't you believe in it?

2) Cover existing walls with new ones. Generally this hides doors / windows / other openings or just makes it really hard to figure out that tavern isn't really the entrance to the bakery.

3) Place targets where none exist. Zombie/skeletal guards are fun.

4) Buildings/structures that weren't there before. Really mess with a party when they try to run across a bridge that isn't really there.

5) Objects that attract attention. Think wagon sitting in road with a tarp over its large cargo. Great way to get bandits to come out and look.

6) Already covered, but spell effects such as cloudkill.

7) Scary things. Summoned evil undead often don't make noise but do draw attention when summoned. This can make even low level wizard seem really nasty when they pull up a few ghostly protectors.

8) Dropped items. When running, if the wizard seems to drop the "Important item", often persuit is stopped for a round as the chasing monster/guards try to recover what was taken.

9) Fleeing/sneaking party member(s). If it looks like someone has stopped to ambush/is getting ready to attack, this can draw attention away from what the party is really doing.

10) Traps. Nothing will slow down a party like seeing a few deep pits that are really wide in their way. Likewise if the party is being followed, seeing an obvious trap (or dead body) can really distract a persuing monster.

[Story]

I don't think you can make pits with Silent Image.

[Segev]

Yeah, pits run into the same "you can't make something not visible" problem. You could only do a pit in the same way a chalk drawing (http://enpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/street-art-chalk-enpundit-9.jpg) specialist does their impressive 3D-looking hyperrealistic stuff.

Looked at from any other angle (http://www.s-trip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/snail-i.jpg), it's horribly distorted (http://i.huffpost.com/gen/683947/thumbs/s-CHALKSNAIL2-large640.jpg?4).

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, pits run into the same "you can't make something not visible" problem. You could only do a pit in the same way a chalk drawing (http://enpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/street-art-chalk-enpundit-9.jpg) specialist does their impressive 3D-looking hyperrealistic stuff.

Looked at from any other angle, it's horribly distorted.

How did you ever conclude that it's flat? The image is product of the minds of the people. They imagine what it is they are seeing.

[John Longarrow]

Pit trap is normally to stop someone chasing you, so you know about what their perspective will be. Just needs to stop them for a round or two normally. After they figure out what you've done, you are already behind a "wall" and they are heading towards the door that isn't really there... :cool:

[Segev]

How did you ever conclude that it's flat? The image is product of the minds of the people. They imagine what it is they are seeing.Nope. Figments are false sensations. Everybody sees the same thing. Glamours and phantasms exist in the mind.

[Snowbluff]

Nope. Figments are false sensations. Everybody sees the same thing. Glamours and phantasms exist in the mind.

Woop, mixed those up again. ^^

[Segev]

I can understand that. I have to look 'em up periodically (or at least double-check spells whose effects I'm sure I know for what subschool they are).
"Figment" brings "of your imagination" to mind, for me, which makes it easy to think it's the one that's in your head.

Would be easier if they could use "hologram" or something. Even if it's not technically accurate once you start adding smells and tactile response to it, it'd be clear it's "there to be seen" as opposed to "all in your head." But that's really too sci-fi for the fantasy feel of D&D.

[Snowbluff]

Another good use is to change is up. If you have been making fake bridges, and they start checking the bridges, move the cliff.


I can understand that. I have to look 'em up periodically (or at least double-check spells whose effects I'm sure I know for what subschool they are).
"Figment" brings "of your imagination" to mind, for me, which makes it easy to think it's the one that's in your head.

Would be easier if they could use "hologram" or something. Even if it's not technically accurate once you start adding smells and tactile response to it, it'd be clear it's "there to be seen" as opposed to "all in your head." But that's really too sci-fi for the fantasy feel of D&D.
Yeah, I know right? :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

Yeah, pits run into the same "you can't make something not visible" problem. You could only do a pit in the same way a chalk drawing (http://enpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/street-art-chalk-enpundit-9.jpg) specialist does their impressive 3D-looking hyperrealistic stuff.

Looked at from any other angle (http://www.s-trip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/snail-i.jpg), it's horribly distorted (http://i.huffpost.com/gen/683947/thumbs/s-CHALKSNAIL2-large640.jpg?4).

This is how I imagine silent image pits working.

Now, one that does let you make pits that will actually appear to be pits from any angle is Mirage Arcana (and possibly Hallucinatory Terrain as well.) However, these are glamers (like invisibility) rather than figments.

[Segev]

Glamors should work, because they alter appearance of things directly, which can "take away" as well as "add." Figments could work, if they said they could do "invisibility" type effects, but I suspect the choice to make Invisibility a Glamor was deliberate, specifically to avoid having these kinds of questions arise. That, or it was a happy coincidence that Glamors alter appearance, Invisibility alters appearance, and nobody thought to make a figment that would have expressly needed to take away rather than add.


Although, I do think a Figment specifically designed for it could make a convincing pit. It'd probably be along the same lines as Illusory Wall: very specific utility, long-duration illusion.



Can Invisibility be cast on parts of objects? Disintegrate can make 10-foot cube holes in things. Could Invisibility do something similar?

[Maginomicon]

Hypothetical scenario: Someone without darkvision or low-light vision is standing in a pitch-black dark room. You create a silent image of a dome around them that is also pitch black. Then you quietly light the area outside of the silent image.

Does the person inside the dome get a will save to negate the silent image? They have no reason to expect that the room had become lit, so I would say no.

The crux of this is the question "can silent image block light?" If it can, then you can come to an open doorway in the dark, place a pitch black plane of silent image over the doorway, and then turn on a light with no issue of someone inside the room seeing your passing. If it can't, then silent image has no point at all because the light bouncing into your eyes from the silent image wouldn't bounce off of the image in the first place.

Personally, I'd go far as to say if something cannot have a reasonable expectation to notice that it's an illusion, they don't get a save, even if the "RAW" would say otherwise.

To demonstrate this, another hypothetical scenario: Assume you take someone without blindsight/blindsense/etc., blindfold them in a decent-sized room, create a silent image of a wall, and then guide them around the room randomly although at some point having them pass through your silent image wall. Do they get a will save? If so, would it be when they pass through the silent image? Personally, I'd say they don't get a save at all, as it's obscenely hard for someone that's not normally blind to judge how much distance they've covered and where you've covered it when you're blinded. Even for someone that's normally blind, if they're led around instead of moving there on their own, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to figure out where they are now relative to where they started (much more so to figure out the exact path they traveled).

I guess the better question is "Would a blind person get a will save against a silent image?" I'd say no, because the will save is entirely irrelevant (they'd just pass right through it unknowingly).

[Psyren]

If it can't, then silent image has no point at all because the light bouncing into your eyes from the silent image wouldn't bounce off of the image in the first place.

Thing is, physics and D&D are not on speaking terms :smalltongue: by this logic, all vampires should be invisible, because they don't cast reflections on your retinas. It's just something you don't need to think about too closely.

I see silent image as being like a hologram - holograms don't cast shadows either.



Can Invisibility be cast on parts of objects? Disintegrate can make 10-foot cube holes in things. Could Invisibility do something similar?

Parts of objects lead to madness though. Before long you end up with people targeting atoms or time-hopping the crank out of a winch so that the Portcullis comes crashing down on the king's head. Well, I guess that last one is kinda cool, but still.

[Segev]

THe last one's actually not precluded.

Targeting individual atoms is, if only because "atoms" aren't really a game concept. For the most part, targeting objects isn't a problem because any "important" ones are usually attended by a creature, so it's no easier to target them than it would be their bearer. Parts of objects... I suppose it would require having some definition of "size" of the material you can target. Disintegrate names 10'x10', for instance.

I don't think we want to allow Invisibility to target "the world" as a "single object," though.

[Psyren]

Targeting individual atoms is, if only because "atoms" aren't really a game concept.

I agree, and neither are things like hilts, straps, buckles etc. So where I tend to draw the line is that the minimum targetable object is one that has an entry, or a defined region of space as pointed out in disintegrate.

[Segev]

Ehh...

That might be drawing the line TOO sharply. I mean, if it's "only objects that have an entry," does that mean that a flower pot can't be targeted? It doesn't have an entry.

[Clove]

Hypothetical scenario: Someone without darkvision or low-light vision is standing in a pitch-black dark room. You create a silent image of a dome around them that is also pitch black. Then you quietly light the area outside of the silent image.

Does the person inside the dome get a will save to negate the silent image? They have no reason to expect that the room had become lit, so I would say no.

The crux of this is the question "can silent image block light?" If it can, then you can come to an open doorway in the dark, place a pitch black plane of silent image over the doorway, and then turn on a light with no issue of someone inside the room seeing your passing. If it can't, then silent image has no point at all because the light bouncing into your eyes from the silent image wouldn't bounce off of the image in the first place.

Personally, I'd go far as to say if something cannot have a reasonable expectation to notice that it's an illusion, they don't get a save, even if the "RAW" would say otherwise.

To demonstrate this, another hypothetical scenario: Assume you take someone without blindsight/blindsense/etc., blindfold them in a decent-sized room, create a silent image of a wall, and then guide them around the room randomly although at some point having them pass through your silent image wall. Do they get a will save? If so, would it be when they pass through the silent image? Personally, I'd say they don't get a save at all, as it's obscenely hard for someone that's not normally blind to judge how much distance they've covered and where you've covered it when you're blinded. Even for someone that's normally blind, if they're led around instead of moving there on their own, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to figure out where they are now relative to where they started (much more so to figure out the exact path they traveled).

I guess the better question is "Would a blind person get a will save against a silent image?" I'd say no, because the will save is entirely irrelevant (they'd just pass right through it unknowingly).

Answer: The person in the dome would suddenly be able to see himself, his gear, and the floor inside the dome. He would not be able to see the source of light, even though things inside the dome are lit up.

Silent image would be completely irrelevant to a blind person. No save is required, no save is necessary, no save is allowed.

[Psyren]

Ehh...

That might be drawing the line TOO sharply. I mean, if it's "only objects that have an entry," does that mean that a flower pot can't be targeted? It doesn't have an entry.

It doesn't specifically, but to get its stats there is an entry you could point to (e.g. Clay Pitcher or Tankard.) Because there is an entry that approximates it, you can use that and the overall principle still holds.

[Segev]

Hm. I'm not sure there exists an entry for every possible - or even probable - "distinct object" one could find. Are "iron ingots" listed? What about "hardback book covers?" Basically, go into any crafter's studio or forge and you'll find distinct objects meant to make into something else, but which individually typically lack entries.

The reason this is important is, of course, that "a buckle on a saddle" was once a buckle separate from a saddle. When did it become impossible to make it invisible separate from the leather strap that holds it to the saddle?

[Scow2]

An actual shadow would be a "real effect."

I think that interpretation is too broad (Same with the issue of mirrors being impossible to pull off). It uses that terminology to make it distinct from quasi-real spells: An illusory fire doesn't burn, an illusory charging bull can't knock things around, etc.

All it takes to make a mirror is a flat plane with a perfectly reflective surface texture - if you can't change surface texture and reflectivity, nothing could ever look real due to how light works.

[Psyren]

Hm. I'm not sure there exists an entry for every possible - or even probable - "distinct object" one could find. Are "iron ingots" listed? What about "hardback book covers?" Basically, go into any crafter's studio or forge and you'll find distinct objects meant to make into something else, but which individually typically lack entries.

And I would say that, in general, such "component items" should be overlooked by the system for simplicity. No rivets, no nails, no handles, links in a chain etc.



The reason this is important is, of course, that "a buckle on a saddle" was once a buckle separate from a saddle. When did it become impossible to make it invisible separate from the leather strap that holds it to the saddle?

That may be so, but again, where does this line of thought lead? You have to draw the line somewhere short of "atoms" and I drew it somewhere simpler.

[Segev]

The "step up" from "atoms" would be "any part of the object you want, so long as it's contiguous," I suppose.

Really, I suppose what we need is a clear idea of what constitutes an "object" for magical purposes. "anything with a listing" doesn't work. But is a door an object? What about its hinges? Are we sure it's not just part of the wall it's in? Are the bricks or mortar objects? What about the wall? Is it an object separate from the building?

If you make a tree invisible, do you have a tree-and-root-system shaped hole apparently in the ground, or just apparently smooth ground?

[Psyren]

The "step up" from "atoms" would be "any part of the object you want, so long as it's contiguous," I suppose.

So.. molecules, then? The hilt of a sword? The fletching on an arrow? A golem's arm? One page in a book? The cover of a book? Where?



If you make a tree invisible, do you have a tree-and-root-system shaped hole apparently in the ground, or just apparently smooth ground?

I'd say the hole would be root-shaped, just like you can make out the outline of an invisible person in a cloud of smoke or underwater.

[Segev]

So.. molecules, then? The hilt of a sword? The fletching on an arrow? A golem's arm? One page in a book? The cover of a book? Where?Well, I don't think you can do that to a golem, because that's a creature, not an object.

But thinking about it...why not? Does this break anything?

(That is beside the point of whether the rules DO permit it. The RAW say 'objects' can be targeted, and the best we've got is our own understanding. Whether that means component parts are targetable remains, I suppose, up to the DM.)




I'd say the hole would be root-shaped, just like you can make out the outline of an invisible person in a cloud of smoke or underwater.
Sadly, I think you're right, as much as I would prefer that a glamor be slightly more effective. ...though what you could do is use Silent Image on the hole to cover it up with "regular ground" to complete the illusion.

[Psyren]

Well, I don't think you can do that to a golem, because that's a creature, not an object.

Golems are explicitly objects as well as creatures:

"The characteristics of a golem come from its nature as a magic item"

Not all constructs are treated that way but golems are.



But thinking about it...why not? Does this break anything?

It needlessly complicates the game for no real benefit and will just lead to more arguments at the table. The leather strap on a breastplate or shield logically has much less hardness than the plate itself, therefore disintegrating/sundering it is a much faster way of reducing the fighter's AC. Then you get into consumable issues - drinking half a potion, or using only half a pouch of Dust of Disappearance, or removing the balls from a Bag of Tricks ahead of time etc. to accomplish unintended effects.

[Segev]

It needlessly complicates the game for no real benefit and will just lead to more arguments at the table. The leather strap on a breastplate or shield logically has much less hardness than the plate itself, therefore disintegrating/sundering it is a much faster way of reducing the fighter's AC. Then you get into consumable issues - drinking half a potion, or using only half a pouch of Dust of Disappearance, or removing the balls from a Bag of Tricks ahead of time etc. to accomplish unintended effects.

Most of those are readily handled by the RAW even if you can target parts of things with Invisibility. Disintegrating the leather strap of his armor either does nothing to the armor itself, or counts as damage done to the armor. Trying to claim differently is mixing RAW and "real world" in a way that would, you're right, make a mess.

Dust of Disappearance doesn't work if you don't use a full dose. The little fuzzy balls can't be out of the bag without being thrown and more than one at a time is, I THINK, going to cause the earlier ones to poof. (I could be wrong on that last one.) Still, the fuzzy balls turn into critters. They remain pokeballs long enough to throw them, but that's it.