Silent Image of a lantern

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all

So, Silent Image. Its not real, it doesnt obey Physics, but its not Mind Affecting, so its not just in you mind. You can ignore it but that doesnt make it go away in my book, its just you choose to believe it doesnt exist.

Now, obviously, it doesnt create an actual light source. But could you make an image of a lit lantern or torch? This is gunna sound weird, but lets say I am looking at the illusion. I would see a bright light as the "lantern" was pointed at me, like a circle of white light. But I wouldnt see it lighting any of the surrounding rocks, right? Unless the image also included a portion that made it LOOK like the rocks were being illuminated? In which case those rocks wouldnt necessarily be the ones that are really there?

How would you rule an illusion light source? I need it for a plot element, rather than needing it for a player, but I am unsure how to rule it.

[Psyren]

How would you rule an illusion light source? I need it for a plot element, rather than needing it for a player, but I am unsure how to rule it.

The fact that your "lantern" isn't lighting up anything around it would be a dead giveaway to most and they would automatically disbelieve, assuming it wasn't too dark to see your illusion in the first place given that it's not emitting any light of its own. You could strengthen your illusion with an actual light source though (e.g. a Light cantrip) to throw people off.

[Segev]

I think the OP might be asking about something that's occurred to me, before.

Just because it doesn't emit actual light, does that necessarily mean it needs to be lit to be visible? Or could you have a dark room over which you lay an illusion of a well-lit room? Those without darkvision would see the illusion, but not what was really there in the dark. They might see dark blobs blocking parts of it, though, where real, unlit objects are in the way of the illusion of well-lit stuff.

I'm not sure this works. But its interesting if it does.

[Jack_Simth]

The current rules are mostly silent on that sort of thing.

It used to be that illusions explicitly could not produce real light (2nd edition). At that time, Continual Flame was an illusion. They dropped that in 3rd edition, at the same time they moved Continual Flame over to Evocation.

Doesn't really help you any, mind, but the history is interesting.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, you could make an illusion of a lit torch or lantern. However, the light would be just as fake as the the lantern itself. Thus, it couldn't actually illuminate any objects, which would likely make it look pretty suspicious. Unless you used even more illusions (or a more extensive illusion) to fake the thing being illuminated. Thus, you could have an illusion of a well-lit room, where none of the objects being lit up actually exist, and the room actually has an entire different layout.

[BowStreetRunner]

When I was a child and we would go camping during the summer, my parents would sometimes turn the Coleman lantern down really low so that it didn't shed any illumination (less even than a night-light) but could be turned up again without having to be re-lit. This is how I would imagine the lantern would appear in your silent image.

[trikkydik]

When I read the spell description it says it makes all the visual elements of the illusion. It does NOT produce sound, smell, temperature, or texture.

What about this description makes you think illusions don't produce light?

I read illusion spells as being capable of casting blinding light.
Because illusions affect everything visual.

So I honestly don't know how this question came about, but silent images affect everything visual, and nothing else.

Since light is visual I would think a silent image could produce a blinding light, if desired.

Also, the spell is clearly a WILL SAVE.
So beating the will save would see right through the illusion, what makes you think it is NOT mind affecting?

I'm looking forward to the responses on this thread.

[Necroticplague]

When I read the spell description it says it makes all the visual elements of the illusion. It does NOT produce sound, smell, temperature, or texture.

What about this description makes you think illusions don't produce light?

I read illusion spells as being capable of casting blinding light.
Because illusions affect everything visual.

So I honestly don't know how this question came about, but silent images affect everything visual, and nothing else.

Since light is visual I would think a silent image could produce a blinding light, if desired. It can produce illusory light, but not actual light. Just as it can make an illusory fire, but not an actual fire. As a quote, look at the Figment subschool in general (of which all Image spells, including silent image, are a subset)

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. So they can't produce real light, just as they can't produce real damage, or real heat, or real nutrition.


Also, the spell is clearly a WILL SAVE.
So beating the will save would see right through the illusion, what makes you think it is NOT mind affecting?


Having a will save is not the same as being mind-effecting. Things that are mind-effecting specifically have a [mind-effecting]tag, or are a subcategory of things that are always mind-effecting. For example, Phantasmal Killer is listed as [mind-effecting], in addition to the fact all phantasms are inherently mind-effecting. Mind-effecting things don't have effects or areas, they have targets (because they only exist for the target and the caster). Figments, like Silent Image, create actual images, while mind-effecting Phantasms only create an impression in someone's mind.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm looking forward to the responses on this thread.

A figment type illusion can never have a real effect and blinding light is a real effect. A figment is unreal and cannot produce real effects; it can't deal damage, support weight, provide nutrition, or act as a barrier (except that a visible figment can block line of sight). You can use a figment to fool opponents, but you can't harm them or affect them directly. For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything.

It goes back to ''illusion spells are not wish spells that can do anything the caster wants'' . You can't cast a first level illusion and just say ''I make a bright light as bright as a sun exploding and everyone must will save or think they died when the planet blew up.''

Note also a figment can't light an object or make the ojbect look like it has light on it...those are real effects. And a figment can't effect an object, you'd need a glamer type illusion for that. But, sure, you could make an illusion of objects lit by light.

Note you could make a ''blinding light spell illusion'' if it was a pattern as they can have real effects.

[P.F.]

a visible figment can block line of sight

Would then the silent image of an unlit lantern cast over a (real) lit lantern plunge the room into darkness?

[Necroticplague]

Would then the silent image of an unlit lantern cast over a (real) lit lantern plunge the room into darkness?

That's not what line of sight refers to. He's simply noting that you can't physically see through an illusion (unless you manage to disbeleive).

[Jay R]

I would allow it (the illusion, not the illusory lantern) to produce light (which is a visual effect) within bounds of its area effect, which cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level.

[trikkydik]

It can produce illusory light, but not actual light. Just as it can make an illusory fire, but not an actual fire. As a quote, look at the Figment subschool in general (of which all Image spells, including silent image, are a subset)
So they can't produce real light, just as they can't produce real damage, or real heat, or real nutrition.



Having a will save is not the same as being mind-effecting. Things that are mind-effecting specifically have a [mind-effecting]tag, or are a subcategory of things that are always mind-effecting. For example, Phantasmal Killer is listed as [mind-effecting], in addition to the fact all phantasms are inherently mind-effecting. Mind-effecting things don't have effects or areas, they have targets (because they only exist for the target and the caster). Figments, like Silent Image, create actual images, while mind-effecting Phantasms only create an impression in someone's mind.

Illusion spells can and DO cause damage. Look up greater shadow evocation. Or greater shadow conjuration.
Anything involving a will save is considered mind affecting.
- Also -
Phantasms are inherently mind affecting IS NOT A FACT. It's not even a complete thought.

Illusionary fire isnt real in the fact that it doesn't burn things. But it produces REAL LIGHT. It's how humans see nearby objects, by detecting light.

Do your homework next time.

[Albions_Angel]

Just going to clear a few things up to stop budding arguments and give a bit of direction.

I am ruling that Silent Image, as a non-mind affecting illusion, is always visible, even to those that disbelieve it. The Will save, unlike mind affecting illusions, isnt to see THROUGH it, its to know, through force of will, that it doesnt exist.

Put your hands behind your back and try to walk into a wall. Unless you are either extremely forceful of mind, or have motor or depth perception issues, you will either slow down, stop or at least pull your head back. Now get 2 friends to hold up a fake wall made of stirofoam. You know its only an inch thick, you can see your two friends holding it. But it still takes considerable will power to walk trough it face first.

Thats what disbelieving does in my world. You can still see it, and you are sure its an illusion, your friends are sure, they just walked through it, but damn if you struggle to force yourself.

Now, for the scenario. I intend to have my crew investigate a haunted island. In reality, the island isnt haunted, but a beguiler is making images of the ghostly lighthouse keeper, walking around with his lantern. So they will see him from quite a distance, and in low light conditions. But I am trying to think of how the lantern would work.

To my mind, Silent Image does produce a light source. A faint one, but its not reflected light to my mind. Im an idiot. Of course it reflects and refracts light. Sorry, its early here.

To my mind, Silent Image does produce a light source. A faint one, but its not reflected light to my mind.

I like the idea that it can produce a faint illumination within its border. You think that would be an ok use of silent image?

[Nando]

Illusion spells can and DO cause damage. Look up greater shadow evocation. Or greater shadow conjuration.
Anything involving a will save is considered mind affecting.
- Also -
Phantasms are inherently mind affecting IS NOT A FACT. It's not even a complete thought.

Illusionary fire isnt real in the fact that it doesn't burn things. But it produces REAL LIGHT. It's how humans see nearby objects, by detecting light.

Do your homework next time.


All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.

Random Spells that require a will-save (when used against undead) but are not mind-affecting:

Banishment
Bestow Curse
Chaos Hammer
Chill Metal
Command Undead
Control Undead
all the Cure/Inflict spells
Death Knell
Dismissal
Glitterdust
Halt Undead
Harm
Heal
Heat Metal
Holy Smite
Imprisonment
Magic Jar
Open/Close (for all the good it does you)
Order's Wrath
Plane Shift
Repulsion
Sanctuary
Shatter
Slow
Soul Bind
Undeath to Death
Unholy Blight

(from here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?88048-non-mind-affecting-will-saves&p=1538849&viewfull=1#post1538849))

Other than this:


A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

I couldn't find a definition on "mind-affecting". Mind-affecting do not have anything more in common thant that, besides immunities etc. calling them out. But inherently they don't even have to allow a will-save...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Illusion spells can and DO cause damage. Look up greater shadow evocation. Or greater shadow conjuration.
Anything involving a will save is considered mind affecting.
- Also -
Phantasms are inherently mind affecting IS NOT A FACT. It's not even a complete thought.

Illusionary fire isnt real in the fact that it doesn't burn things. But it produces REAL LIGHT. It's how humans see nearby objects, by detecting light.

Do your homework next time.

Illusions can do damage. Figments can't. The latter is a subset of the former. The entire image line, from silent up through programmed, are figments and incapable of dealing damage of any type.

Phantasms are inherently mind affecting because the general description for phantasms says they are and because they carry the mind affecting tag without exception.

Spells do what they say they do and nothing more. If a spell doesn't say that it produces light then it doesn't. The image line of spells is useless for lighting up anything.

Humans see things when their eyes intercept the light that has been reflected off of objects. The object itself need not emit light.

[Grand Poobah]

Now, for the scenario. I intend to have my crew investigate a haunted island. In reality, the island isnt haunted, but a beguiler is making images of the ghostly lighthouse keeper, walking around with his lantern. So they will see him from quite a distance, and in low light conditions. But I am trying to think of how the lantern would work.

'Real' ghosts inhabit the Ethereal Plane unless they manifest when they become incorporeal on the material plane. I'd say the lantern doesn't necessarily need to cast light to look believable.

[Necroticplague]

Illusion spells can and DO cause damage. Look up greater shadow evocation. Or greater shadow conjuration.
Those are Shadow subschool illusions, not Figments. Shadow illusions explicitly can produce real effects, while Figments explicitly cannot.


Anything involving a will save is considered mind affecting.
False. Better yet, do you have any kind of evidence for this position?


- Also -
Phantasms are inherently mind affecting IS NOT A FACT. It's not even a complete thought.
Yes it is. It's literally in the definition of Phantasms.

Illusionary fire isnt real in the fact that it doesn't burn things. But it produces REAL LIGHT. It's how humans see nearby objects, by detecting light.

Do your homework next time.

No, it doesn't produce any kind of real light. it produces an illusory light at best. A false sensation. That's what figments do.

You tell me to do my homework, yet you clearly need to read up on the different types of illusions yourself.


A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
These are Figments, incapable of making anything real. They're also the types of illusions all the Image spells are.


A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real. These are Shadow spells, which have real effects because they draw energy from the Plane of Shadows.


A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression. (It’s all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see.) Third parties viewing or studying the scene don’t notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells. These are phantasms, which only exist in some people's heads, and are inherently mind-effecting.

There are also at least two more types of illusions, Patterns (also inherently mind-effecting, but in a different way than Phantasms), and Glamers (which make something appear to be something else)

[Jay R]

If the silent image didn't produce light, you couldn't see it at all. Light rays are how you see.

If it didn't produce actual rays of light that bounce off other objects, you couldn't see it in a mirror, and a mirror would be a perfect defense against it.

I conclude that an illusory lantern should be able to light up an area.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Did you really just try to use science to justify something in DnD?

Darkvision. That's my reply to 'dnd characters use light reflection to see'.

[Necroticplague]

Or darkvision's big cousin, See in Darkness.

[Telonius]

I imagine Silent Image to basically create a hyper-realistic 3-D painting. It's certainly possible to make a painting of a lit lantern, but that doesn't make the painting give off light. You still need to have an external light source to see it. If you can manage an external light source, it could potentially fool a person. If you can't manage an external light source, nobody sees the image.

[BowStreetRunner]

If the silent image didn't produce light, you couldn't see it at all unless there is another light source creating light that bounces off the object. Light rays are how you see.

If it didn't produce actual rays of light that bounce off other objects, or there isn't another light source bouncing light off of the object, you couldn't see it in a mirror, and a mirror would be a perfect defense against it.

Fixed a couple of things for you there.

[Extra Anchovies]

Did you really just try to use science to justify something in DnD?

Darkvision. That's my reply to 'dnd characters use light reflection to see'.


Or darkvision's big cousin, See in Darkness.

Now that I think about it, those are both really solid evidence that in D&Dverse, sight is facilitated by Aristotelian eye beams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_beam). We already use the classical elements, might as well go for the full Monty. Or Monte Cook, I suppose.




If the silent image didn't produce light, you couldn't see it at all unless there is another light source creating light that bounces off the object. Light rays are how you see.

If it didn't produce actual rays of light that bounce off other objects, or there isn't another light source bouncing light off of the object, you couldn't see it in a mirror, and a mirror would be a perfect defense against it.
Fixed a couple of things for you there.

Hm, now this is solid evidence for standard particle theory, with only Darkvision and See In Darkness relying on emission. It would mean that a Silent Image of a lamp would not be visible in a room with no light sources, which does make sense - if there's no light reaching observers' eyes, they wouldn't see anything, including any illusions.

[Jay R]

If the silent image didn't produce light, you couldn't see it at all unless there is another light source creating light that bounces off the object. Light rays are how you see.

If it didn't produce actual rays of light that bounce off other objects, or there isn't another light source bouncing light off of the object, you couldn't see it in a mirror, and a mirror would be a perfect defense against it.

Fixed a couple of things for you there.

It's not a fix; you just added some nonsense.

Bouncing off what object? There's nothing there to bounce off of; it's an illusion - specifically a figment.

For an illusion to work, it has to change and/or create light patterns. There is no light bouncing off the figment; the illusion creates a false sensation. I assume that it can create a false sensation of light, because that's all it is - a false sensation of light.

A silent image of a red wall isn't absorbing non-red light and reflecting red light. There's nothing there to absorb or reflect it. It's creating a false sensation of something which, if it were real, would absorb non-red light and reflect red light.

The easiest way to recognize it as an illusion is that it doesn't fade away like the light from a real lantern. It stops dead at the edge of the illusions area - four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level.

An amusing consequence is that, just as a sound figment cannot speak in a language the caster doesn't know, a lantern figment cannot reveal things that the caster doesn't know are present. Unless the caster can see in the dark, the light of the figment lantern would show the room as the caster remembers it (or imagines it), without revealing the now-open pit trap, or the ogre about to pounce.

A figment can't hide something, but that doesn't mean that it reveals something currently hidden.

In any case, it's a complicated enough question that it will require the DM's ruling, and not all DMs will rule the same.

[Tohsaka Rin]

It's not nonsense, that's how vision works.

The eye doesn't see a thing, it sees the light that is reflected off of an object. When you see, say, a red ball, you're seeing the red portion of the visible wavelength being reflected off of the ball, the rest of the color wavelengths are being absorbed.

[Necroticplague]

It seems that we're talking past each other to some degree. Looking at post above this one expanding on what they mean by saying the illusion can cast light is pretty much identical in results to my earlier post saying they can't.


Yes, you could make an illusion of a lit torch or lantern. However, the light would be just as fake as the the lantern itself. Thus, it couldn't actually illuminate any objects, which would likely make it look pretty suspicious. Unless you used even more illusions (or a more extensive illusion) to fake the thing being illuminated. Thus, you could have an illusion of a well-lit room, where none of the objects being lit up actually exist, and the room actually has an entire different layout.


An amusing consequence is that, just as a sound figment cannot speak in a language the caster doesn't know, a lantern figment cannot reveal things that the caster doesn't know are present. Unless the caster can see in the dark, the light of the figment lantern would show the room as the caster remembers it (or imagines it), without revealing the now-open pit trap, or the ogre about to pounce.

That being said, for the OPs situation, the concern about the lantern emitting light is actually the least of the problems. The fact that Silent Images are completely immobile is probably a bigger one, as you'd have a ghost who stands completely stock-still, like a video game character whose AI froze up. You'd need at least a Minor image to get around that.

[Albions_Angel]

Thats a good point. Interesting. And minor is a level 2 spell. Much too high for my party to tackle.

Ok, Ill just use dancing lights (which can look humanoid).

Interesting discussions though.

[BowStreetRunner]

Bouncing off what object? There's nothing there to bounce off of; it's an illusion - specifically a figment.

For an illusion to work, it has to change and/or create light patterns. There is no light bouncing off the figment; the illusion creates a false sensation. I assume that it can create a false sensation of light, because that's all it is - a false sensation of light.

A silent image of a red wall isn't absorbing non-red light and reflecting red light. There's nothing there to absorb or reflect it. It's creating a false sensation of something which, if it were real, would absorb non-red light and reflect red light.

You've convince me, at least on this point. As to whether the illusion of a lantern could include the illusion of the light being cast by the lantern (at least within the area of effect of the spell) depends on the limitation of Silent Image to creating "an object, creature, or force". Would the light being cast by the lantern be a part of the lantern, or a separate illusion? For that matter, what constitutes a force being portrayed? Is Light a force for this purpose?

[Zaq]

To me, I think the most important part is that a figment (like Silent Image) cannot change the appearance of things—they can put a fake image between the observer and the real object (the classic "illusory wall in front of a door" gambit, for example), but they can't make the real object look different. I read that as saying that a figment cannot illuminate a real object, since that would be changing its appearance.

[Kantaki]

I would say the illusion creates a visible „light”* but no illumination (unless it is part of the illusion obviously).
So the lantern would be visible, but not the surroundings.

To be honest, since the point is to create a false ghost I would do it this way even if the illusion could be created in a way that allows illumination. Simply because that seems more fitting to me.
A guy with a lantern? Might draw attention even if he is a bit pale.
The same guy with a lantern that doesn't illuminate the surroundings?
Should scare most people** off, especially if combined with other haunting effects. And I guess that is usually the
oint of faking a haunted location.

*Or rather eyebeams/viewrays/magic particles/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-things- tha-make-illusions-visible that make the observer perceive light.
**Outside of meddling kids adventurers obviously.:smallamused:

[Gallowglass]

Hi all

So, Silent Image. Its not real, it doesnt obey Physics, but its not Mind Affecting, so its not just in you mind. You can ignore it but that doesnt make it go away in my book, its just you choose to believe it doesnt exist.

Now, obviously, it doesnt create an actual light source. But could you make an image of a lit lantern or torch? This is gunna sound weird, but lets say I am looking at the illusion. I would see a bright light as the "lantern" was pointed at me, like a circle of white light. But I wouldnt see it lighting any of the surrounding rocks, right? Unless the image also included a portion that made it LOOK like the rocks were being illuminated? In which case those rocks wouldnt necessarily be the ones that are really there?

How would you rule an illusion light source? I need it for a plot element, rather than needing it for a player, but I am unsure how to rule it.

I'm ignoring all the other posts here, I'm just replying to you, the OP with the question.

Ask yourself, as DM, this question. If an illusionist is in a pitch-black, dark room and he casts a silent image of a glowing, brightly lit lantern, does the room light up or does it not light up.

Don't overthink it. Go with your first blush gut response.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room lights up, then the illusionary lantern sheds light. That light should act like light, meaning as objects move around the room, the shadows they cast will change and move. Moving forward, this will be important for how illusions work in your world.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room does not light up, then you've answered your question as to whether the silent image can affect the environmental aspects of darkness as they exist as a game construct. It can't. This will be important for how illusions work in your world.

[Segev]

The reason silent image can't shed real light (such that a human could use it to navigate an otherwise dark room) is that it's a Figment, and Figments cannot produce real effects (such as illumination, which is an environmental condition).

It's not because it's an illusion. An illusion can produce light, if it is not a figment nor a glamour.

What remains an interesting question to me is whether a silent image of a lit lantern, burning torch, or lit candle would be, itself, visible, if cast in an otherwise-pitch-dark room. In other words, if I am in the dark and cast silent image to create one of these things, is the image seeable only to those who have Darkvision, or is the image visible to all? It doesn't illuminate the area. But can its illusory light make it visible, itself?

Similarly, can I cast an illusion of a couch into a dark room, and have the couch be visible despite there being no light to reflect off of it?

[nyjastul69]

I'm ignoring all the other posts here, I'm just replying to you, the OP with the question.

Ask yourself, as DM, this question. If an illusionist is in a pitch-black, dark room and he casts a silent image of a glowing, brightly lit lantern, does the room light up or does it not light up.

Don't overthink it. Go with your first blush gut response.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room lights up, then the illusionary lantern sheds light. That light should act like light, meaning as objects move around the room, the shadows they cast will change and move. Moving forward, this will be important for how illusions work in your world.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room does not light up, then you've answered your question as to whether the silent image can affect the environmental aspects of darkness as they exist as a game construct. It can't. This will be important for how illusions work in your world.

This... and more of this.

This thread is exactly why the entire school of illusion is very DM dependent. In my experience illusion spells have always been one of, if not the most, debated/contested area in D&D. It's why I don't play illusionists and recommend that players in my game don't. It can be a fun school, but it is rife with player and DM abuse.

[SethoMarkus]

I now want to pull out the old Killer Gnome build and just use various illusions including Shadow Illusion Light spells to create a completely fake but seemingly real haunted mansion...

[Psyren]

I'm ignoring all the other posts here, I'm just replying to you, the OP with the question.

Ask yourself, as DM, this question. If an illusionist is in a pitch-black, dark room and he casts a silent image of a glowing, brightly lit lantern, does the room light up or does it not light up.

Don't overthink it. Go with your first blush gut response.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room lights up, then the illusionary lantern sheds light. That light should act like light, meaning as objects move around the room, the shadows they cast will change and move. Moving forward, this will be important for how illusions work in your world.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room does not light up, then you've answered your question as to whether the silent image can affect the environmental aspects of darkness as they exist as a game construct. It can't. This will be important for how illusions work in your world.

While I agree that the GM's decision is what ultimately matters for an ambiguous rule, we can still discuss it and provide rationale as to why we would lean one way or another. The designers do this themselves when they sit down to create FAQ, and if necessary, add or remove text entirely to make errata.


The reason silent image can't shed real light (such that a human could use it to navigate an otherwise dark room) is that it's a Figment, and Figments cannot produce real effects (such as illumination, which is an environmental condition).

It's not because it's an illusion. An illusion can produce light, if it is not a figment nor a glamour.

Case in point - the above matches my rationale perfectly and this would be my personal ruling. Illumination fits my definition of a "real effect" and thus would be out of bounds for a figment. Similarly, a major image of a fire can carry the thermal effect of feeling warm, but never warm enough to actually cause damage to a creature, even one that is sensitive to heat.



What remains an interesting question to me is whether a silent image of a lit lantern, burning torch, or lit candle would be, itself, visible, if cast in an otherwise-pitch-dark room. In other words, if I am in the dark and cast silent image to create one of these things, is the image seeable only to those who have Darkvision, or is the image visible to all? It doesn't illuminate the area. But can its illusory light make it visible, itself?

Similarly, can I cast an illusion of a couch into a dark room, and have the couch be visible despite there being no light to reflect off of it?

I would rule that beings with darkvision can perceive the illusion in the dark room, by whatever biology allows them to perceive anything in a dark room. I view illusions as paintings - a painting in a dark room is there but not visible.

[Gallowglass]

While I agree that the GM's decision is what ultimately matters for an ambiguous rule, we can still discuss it and provide rationale as to why we would lean one way or another. The designers do this themselves when they sit down to create FAQ, and if necessary, add or remove text entirely to make errata.


Never said you couldn't. I just pointed out that I was replying with MY advice TO the OP, and not to the long discussion scrawl, specifically because my advice was about how I think he should look at it, not my opinion on how the rules should be interpreted.

I was making no value judgement on the validity of either side of the argument OR of the argument itself, I was just focusing my reply to the specific OP, not to the anyone else.

[P.F.]

Did you really just try to use science to justify something in DnD?

Darkvision. That's my reply to 'dnd characters use light reflection to see'.

You mean the ability that was called "infravision" in 2nd edition? Yeah, apparently infrared light is a thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography), allowing darkvision and physics to exist simultaneously.


A figment can't hide something

Have to disagree here because of


the classic "illusory wall in front of a door" gambit, for example

...


I'm ignoring all the other posts here, I'm just replying to you, the OP with the question.

Ask yourself, as DM, this question. If an illusionist is in a pitch-black, dark room and he casts a silent image of a glowing, brightly lit lantern, does the room light up or does it not light up.

Don't overthink it. Go with your first blush gut response.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room lights up, then the illusionary lantern sheds light. That light should act like light, meaning as objects move around the room, the shadows they cast will change and move. Moving forward, this will be important for how illusions work in your world.

If, in your imagination, in your mind, the room does not light up, then you've answered your question as to whether the silent image can affect the environmental aspects of darkness as they exist as a game construct. It can't. This will be important for how illusions work in your world.

I love this. In my world, the room does not light up. Instead, there appears to be a lit lantern suspended in mid-air (or on an illusory piece of furniture) in the middle of an empty room large enough that the walls, ceiling, etc, are beyond the radius of illumination. A character walking into such a room could easily be forgiven for thinking the area around the lantern was illuminated, and for uttering a few choice four-letter words when he crashes headlong into a table, wall, or other obstacle.

Finally, here's a good physics-bender:

I can cast shadow evocation to use energy from the plane of shadow, the very essence of darkness and the absence of light, to duplicate the effects of a light spell.

[Psyren]

Indeed, fair enough - just saying that I think there is value in coming down on a side too, that justification might provide additional perspective that can help him/her make the most informed decision possible.

[Necroticplague]

This... and more of this.

This thread is exactly why the entire school of illusion is very DM dependent. In my experience illusion spells have always been one of, if not the most, debated/contested area in D&D. It's why I don't play illusionists and recommend that players in my game don't. It can be a fun school, but it is rife with player and DM abuse.

To be fair, it's not all illusions that have this vagueness problem. Really, it's only figments that do. Shadow, Glamer, Pattern, and Phantasm spells are usually pretty explicit about what they do.

[Segev]

I can cast shadow evocation to use energy from the plane of shadow, the very essence of darkness and the absence of light, to duplicate the effects of a light spell.

To be fair, this is no weirder than the 3.5e darkness spell creating a region of "shadowy illumination," and thus, by the RAW, actually making it easier for those lacking Darkvision to find their way around an otherwise pitch-dark room.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's not a fix; you just added some nonsense.

Bouncing off what object? There's nothing there to bounce off of; it's an illusion - specifically a figment.

For an illusion to work, it has to change and/or create light patterns. There is no light bouncing off the figment; the illusion creates a false sensation. I assume that it can create a false sensation of light, because that's all it is - a false sensation of light.

A silent image of a red wall isn't absorbing non-red light and reflecting red light. There's nothing there to absorb or reflect it. It's creating a false sensation of something which, if it were real, would absorb non-red light and reflect red light.

The easiest way to recognize it as an illusion is that it doesn't fade away like the light from a real lantern. It stops dead at the edge of the illusions area - four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level.

An amusing consequence is that, just as a sound figment cannot speak in a language the caster doesn't know, a lantern figment cannot reveal things that the caster doesn't know are present. Unless the caster can see in the dark, the light of the figment lantern would show the room as the caster remembers it (or imagines it), without revealing the now-open pit trap, or the ogre about to pounce.

A figment can't hide something, but that doesn't mean that it reveals something currently hidden.

In any case, it's a complicated enough question that it will require the DM's ruling, and not all DMs will rule the same.

Alternately, the magic simply bends the extant light as an object it is designed to replicate would. If there's no llight to bend the magic still functions like its supposed to but can't actually do anything, akin to the way a paddlewheel in a steam-boat can be functioning perfectly but accomplishes nothing if it's not in water.

From a rules standpoint; I too am leaning on the clauses regarding a figment being unable to have any real effect and being unable to change the appearance of other objects.

[nyjastul69]

To be fair, it's not all illusions that have this vagueness problem. Really, it's only figments that do. Shadow, Glamer, Pattern, and Phantasm spells are usually pretty explicit about what they do.

Yeah, I should have made that distinction.

[D.M.Hentchel]

So because I like throwing bricks in cloths dryers:

What about ghost sound. If I use ghost sound in an echoey room can I hear an echo of the sound I create and thus measure the room by timing it? If I can't can I then make sound outside of a soundproof room that can be heard from within?

[nyjastul69]

So because I like throwing bricks in cloths dryers:

What about ghost sound. If I use ghost sound in an echoey room can I hear an echo of the sound I create and thus measure the room by timing it? If I can't can I then make sound outside of a soundproof room that can be heard from within?

Bricks in a cloths dryer... I haven't actually heard that one before, thanks.

Oh, and by the way, stop being mean and causing trouble. 😉

[Andezzar]

When I was a child and we would go camping during the summer, my parents would sometimes turn the Coleman lantern down really low so that it didn't shed any illumination (less even than a night-light) but could be turned up again without having to be re-lit. This is how I would imagine the lantern would appear in your silent image.I'm not familiar with the Coleman Lantern that you are using, but an illusion of a lantern with a big visible flame that does not illuminate its surroundings would be pretty obviously fake. If the flame was apparently turned down, the illusion would be much harder to spot, if lanterns that can be dimmed exist in D&D.


So because I like throwing bricks in cloths dryers:

What about ghost sound. If I use ghost sound in an echoey room can I hear an echo of the sound I create and thus measure the room by timing it? If I can't can I then make sound outside of a soundproof room that can be heard from within?Nope, you are not producing real sound. You could however produce an ghost sound that sounds like it echoes.

[Aharon]

Well, the discussion is almost over, but I still feel like I can contribute, seeing how nobody up to now has quoted the actual rules text, as far as I can see:



Figment
A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

and



Silent Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance: No
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

Focus
A bit of fleece

So the Silent Image, in my opinion, can create the visual illusion, false sensation of a lantern that is emitting light. As the figment only produces the false sensation for those creatures that perceive it, it wouldn't be visible to creatures without darkvision in a dark room - similar to how no silent images at all are visible to blind creatures like grimlocks.

[Grand Poobah]

The fact that Silent Images are completely immobile is probably a bigger one, as you'd have a ghost who stands completely stock-still, like a video game character whose AI froze up. You'd need at least a Minor image to get around that.

Not according to the SRD they aren't.


SRD
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

[Strigon]

So, a figment just creates a sensation, and Silent Image is a figment, ergo only a sensation, unable to react with the physical world.
Suppose, then, you had an illusory wall covering a very bright light. Could you burn your retinas by staring at a seemingly blank wall? I mean, it doesn't stop the light, does it? Would you still see the blinding light? If not, would you feel it?

[ExLibrisMortis]

So, a figment just creates a sensation, and Silent Image is a figment, ergo only a sensation, unable to react with the physical world.
Suppose, then, you had an illusory wall covering a very bright light. Could you burn your retinas by staring at a seemingly blank wall? I mean, it doesn't stop the light, does it? Would you still see the blinding light? If not, would you feel it?
A figment creates an image that exists outside the caster and the onlookers. There are three ways you can interpret that:

1) The figment reflects, bends or otherwise shapes extant light to create the desired image.
2a) The figment creates light to create the desired image.
2b) As 2a, but the figment can also destroy light.
( 3) A combination of the above. )

Going with 1, then you won't burn your retinas, because the light is reflected (sideways, down, somewhere you can't see it).
Going with 2a, then yes. The illusory wall is brighter than the bright light, in order to cover it up. This is the stupidest interpretation, in my opinion.
Going with 2b, then no. The bright light is destroyed, and light is created in its place, with the appearance of being reflected off a wall.
Going with 3, then no, as per the above three.

[Necroticplague]

So, a figment just creates a sensation, and Silent Image is a figment, ergo only a sensation, unable to react with the physical world.
Suppose, then, you had an illusory wall covering a very bright light. Could you burn your retinas by staring at a seemingly blank wall? I mean, it doesn't stop the light, does it? Would you still see the blinding light? If not, would you feel it?

Well, in the DnD rules, you can't burn out your retinas by staring at a bright light, and the real world doesn't operate under laws that allow for Figments, so that question is ridiculous no matter which angle you come at it from.

Anyway, you wouldn't see the light directly. After all, there's an opaque object in the way! While a figment may not interact with the world, they aren't necessarily transparent (unless you succeed on a will save against them, or specifically make them transparent). However, if you turned around, the light wouldn't have been stopped, so objects on this side of the wall will still be illuminated like the wall wasn't there (thus, making it look like the room is illuminated without a visible source).

[D.M.Hentchel]

Nope, you are not producing real sound. You could however produce an ghost sound that sounds like it echoes.

But if that is the case wouldn't my fake sound travel through something like a sound-proof room, because it doesn't bounce of objects?

[Andezzar]

But if that is the case wouldn't my fake sound travel through something like a sound-proof room, because it doesn't bounce of objects?it does not bounce of objects, but it does not go through them either. You do not have line of effect to beyond the wall. So there is no spell and thus no sound beyond the wall

[Necroticplague]

But if that is the case wouldn't my fake sound travel through something like a sound-proof room, because it doesn't bounce of objects?

Yes, your sound doesn't need to travel as a sound would. In fact, the hard cut-off of its range means it very probably can't. However, a soundproof room would break Line of Effect, which all area spells need to function.

[Seltsamuel]

You can´t burn out your retinas by light in DnD but can a silent image block a gaze attack or something like that?

[Necroticplague]

You can´t burn out your retinas by light in DnD but can a silent image block a gaze attack or something like that?

Yes, it can, though the relevent text is under Gaze Attack, not Figments.

A gaze special attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature’s eyes. The attack can have almost any sort of effect: petrification, death, charm, and so on. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the creature’s entry for details. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways. You can't look at something you can't see.

[P.F.]

Because ghost sound produces no actual sound, but merely the sensation of hearing a sound, would a ghost sound therefore still be audible to characters within the radius of an area-effect silence spell?

[Necroticplague]

Because ghost sound produces no actual sound, but merely the sensation of hearing a sound, would a ghost sound therefore still be audible to characters within the radius of an area-effect silence spell?

No. Ghost Sound explicitly makes "illusory sounds" (see effect line). Silence explicitly says that all sound is stopped. Since illusory sound is still a type of sound, silence stops ghost sounds just as well as normal sounds.

[Seltsamuel]

Isn´t blocking the gaze attack a real effect? Illusions are complicated :smallconfused:

[Andezzar]

Isn´t blocking the gaze attack a real effect? Illusions are complicated :smallconfused:You are not blocking the gaze attack. An opaque illusion simply makes the target of the gaze attack invalid, just like a real wall or a blindfold would.

[Necroticplague]

Isn´t blocking the gaze attack a real effect? Illusions are complicated :smallconfused:

Except it's not doing any kind of special 'blocking'. It's simply that under those circumstances, you fail to qualify as a valid target. Anything that would make you unable to look at them will do. From closing your eyes, to having the area be filled with thick smoke, to the creature with a gaze attack being invisible.