Fight from inside a permanent image help

[Thac0 Redeye]

So my BBEG is going to be hiding and casting spells from inside a permanent image. The party will see a 10'X10' pillar 15 ft high with a throne and the BBEG on top. This is all the image. the actual BBEG will be on the ground inside the image casting summon and non directed spells until "seen" by the PC's. My question is how easily will the BBEG be detected? I've always been unsure when they get a WILL save to disbelieve and see through the image. when the BBEG casts spells it will seem that the image on top of pillar is casting and so if PC shoots arrow or ray spell what happens? Should the image look like it takes damage or will the arrow go right through? The BBEG Is a 12th level drow cleric that does have access to one wizard spell per level via ACF.

How do i play this.
Thanks

[Gruftzwerg]

Here some ways to notice the illusion and get a save against it:

You get a save roll when:
- Trying to land /climb on it.
- spells with a "Target: creature" will fail. But if the caster of the Illusion sees the spell being cast and identifies it (Spellcraft check) he can still let the illusion react as if the spell hasn't failed (denying the save against the illusion).
- sometimes a spot check can be used to notice things: e.g. The illusion looks like being hit by an arrow, while the real arrow hits the ground/wall. Or when you notice that there is no blood on your weapon despite the enemy bleeding after you "hit" him.
- when someone tells you it is an illusion
...


Imho have a look at Mislead (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mislead.htm). You can get it either as domain spell or as wizard spell.
With Mislead you can use a real pillar and throne and reduce the chances of an interaction with the illusion (landing/climbing on it). Downside is, if someone has access to permanently "see invisible" (e.g warlock invocations with 24h duration). But other than that, it is a good spell for what you are aiming for I guess.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can't hide inside an image spell because it's a figment. If you want to use illusion spells to hide something you need to use a glamer.

Edit: You can hide behind a figment (in which case it breaks LoS pretty much like a fog cloud would) but if you stand inside it you'll just clip through or overlap it in some way that makes it obvious you're there.


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.


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

You could combine it with Improved Invisibility to hide inside the image, but it would be defeated by anything that defeats invisibility.

You also can't have a Permanent Image look like it's casting whenever you cast something (or have it look like it's being affected by attacks) because you have to concentrate on it to change it, otherwise it's static.

To achieve the effect you are looking for you'll need something like Project Image (PHB), Benign Projection (CoV) or Trickery Devotion (CC) combined with HiPS or invisibility.


As for saving throws you get a save when you interact with the illusion, so any time you try to attack, touch or otherwise affect it, but not just from seeing it (without certain special abilities at least).

[Troacctid]

You can't hide inside an image spell because it's a figment. If you want to use illusion spells to hide something you need to use a glamer.

Edit: You can hide behind a figment (in which case it breaks LoS pretty much like a fog cloud would) but if you stand inside it you'll just clip through or overlap it in some way that makes it obvious you're there.
There's no reason why you would clip through a figment that's eight times the size of your space, and it wouldn't break line of sight for you because figments are see-through after you disbelieve them. This tactic should work just fine.

As for hard it is to see through, that's a big question mark, because it depends a lot on the party. If anyone has blindsense, blindsight, or tremorsense, whether on themselves or on something like a tentacle whip or bat familiar, seeing through the ruse will be trivial. You might as well say in your initial description of the room that there is an illusory pillar with a person standing inside it. Scent is not quite as powerful, but if they have it, it should give enough of a clue to help players connect the dots. (You smell two enemies, but you only see one.)

If they don't have any special senses, they have to figure it out the hard way, and my expectation would be that this means attacking the illusory bad guy on the illusory throne, seeing the attack go right through, saving to disbelieve, and then the jig is up.

However, I think it will be easier to figure out than you want, because he definitely won't appear to be casting spells. Permanent image is not programmed image, nor is it mislead. It doesn't move, speak, or do anything other than remain static unless the caster takes a standard action to concentrate on it. So, they will see him sitting perfectly still, unless he takes a turn off from casting to try and maintain the ruse. I can't imagine it would take more than a DC 10 Spot check to notice that he's not moving at all, or a DC 10 Listen check to notice that the verbal components are coming from the pillar.

[Eurus]

However, I think it will be easier to figure out than you want, because he definitely won't appear to be casting spells. Permanent image is not programmed image, nor is it mislead. It doesn't move, speak, or do anything other than remain static unless the caster takes a standard action to concentrate on it. So, they will see him sitting perfectly still, unless he takes a turn off from casting to try and maintain the ruse. I can't imagine it would take more than a DC 10 Spot check to notice that he's not moving at all, or a DC 10 Listen check to notice that the verbal components are coming from the pillar.

...The idea of an evil wizard with an incredibly obvious illusion setup like that is so funny that I might have to steal and use it. The party can just go put the guy in a headlock.

[Troacctid]

...The idea of an evil wizard with an incredibly obvious illusion setup like that is so funny that I might have to steal and use it. The party can just go put the guy in a headlock.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's no reason why you would clip through a figment that's eight times the size of your space, and it wouldn't break line of sight for you because figments are see-through after you disbelieve them. This tactic should work just fine.
The reason is that it's a figment. By RAW a figment can't be used to make something seem like something else so you can't hide inside it.
Clipping through or overlapping is just how i'd flavor it because the rules don't specify what it looks like, just that it doesn't work.

A 10x10 figment of a pillar will always have you visible from any directions that have LoS to the square you're in while blocking LoS from any (non-disbelieving) watchers that have a square of figment between your square and them.

And no, hiding behind a figment wouldn't break LoS for you, but it would break LoS for your enemies until they manage the save to disbelieve.

[TheStranger]

The reason is that it's a figment. By RAW a figment can't be used to make something seem like something else so you can't hide inside it.
Clipping through or overlapping is just how i'd flavor it because the rules don't specify what it looks like, just that it doesn't work.

A 10x10 figment of a pillar will always have you visible from any directions that have LoS to the square you're in while blocking LoS from any (non-disbelieving) watchers that have a square of figment between your square and them.

And no, hiding behind a figment wouldn't break LoS for you, but it would break LoS for your enemies until they manage the save to disbelieve.

Okay, but couldn't you create a figment of a hollow pillar? So you're not sharing the space of the pillar, you're in an open square in the middle and functionally "behind" the figment from all directions.

Which doesn't help with the issue of the illusion being static. But even if you solve that, I'm not sure that an actual hollow pillar with a well-hidden peephole to get LOS wouldn't be better. It's still a tough check to see it, but then you're not completely exposed even after somebody makes the check. Heck, use an illusion to hide your peephole - then the party needs to succeed at a Will save and a spot check before they can even worry about getting into the pillar (secret door, probably). Add an escape tunnel in the floor of the hiding spot, too.

Or just stack half a dozen permanent/programmed images of the BBEG in various hiding spots while the actual BBEG watches the whole thing through a tiny hole in the ceiling. Why is he even in the same room as his illusions?

[Troacctid]

The reason is that it's a figment. By RAW a figment can't be used to make something seem like something else so you can't hide inside it.
Clipping through or overlapping is just how i'd flavor it because the rules don't specify what it looks like, just that it doesn't work.
It doesn't have to make you seem like something else in order for you to hide inside it. Is obscuring mist changing the appearance of everything inside it? No. Occlusion is not alteration.

[Zanos]

OP should consider using project image instead, which is made for exactly this kind of thing.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/projectImage.htm


- spells with a "Target: creature" will fail. But if the caster of the Illusion sees the spell being cast and identifies it (Spellcraft check) he can still let the illusion react as if the spell hasn't failed (denying the save against the illusion).

No, he can't. Spells with invalid targets fail, and the caster knows it failed.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Okay, but couldn't you create a figment of a hollow pillar? So you're not sharing the space of the pillar, you're in an open square in the middle and functionally "behind" the figment from all directions.

Which doesn't help with the issue of the illusion being static. But even if you solve that, I'm not sure that an actual hollow pillar with a well-hidden peephole to get LOS wouldn't be better. It's still a tough check to see it, but then you're not completely exposed even after somebody makes the check. Heck, use an illusion to hide your peephole - then the party needs to succeed at a Will save and a spot check before they can even worry about getting into the pillar (secret door, probably). Add an escape tunnel in the floor of the hiding spot, too.

Or just stack half a dozen permanent/programmed images of the BBEG in various hiding spots while the actual BBEG watches the whole thing through a tiny hole in the ceiling. Why is he even in the same room as his illusions?

You could stand in the middle square of an illusory 15x15 pillar. You just need a space filled with the figment between your square and any watchers for it to work.
You also don't need a peephole, as Troacctid said you can see through an illusion after you disbelieve it, which you can do automatically for your own (you know it's not real after all).

And the reason he's in the same room and not in a solid pillar is that he needs line of effect to the party to cast spells on them, which requires a hole of at least 1 square foot.


It doesn't have to make you seem like something else in order for you to hide inside it. Is obscuring mist changing the appearance of everything inside it? No. Occlusion is not alteration.
If you're sharing the figments space making it look like you're not there is still making you seem like something else (empty air, part of a pillar). Invisibility is a glamer for a reason.

And leaving aside that Obscuring Mist is not even an illusion and therefore has no bearing on this, in order to break LoS with Obscuring Mist you also need to have a 5ft square filled with it between you and any observers. Just having it in the space you occupy doesn't hide you, it just grants partial concealment.

[Troacctid]

You could stand in the middle square of an illusory 15x15 pillar. You just need a space filled with the figment between your square and any watchers for it to work.
An illusory wall is only 1 inch thick. Are you suggesting it doesn't block line of sight?


If you're sharing the figments space making it look like you're not there is still making you seem like something else (empty air, part of a pillar). Invisibility is a glamer for a reason.
It's not making you seem like anything else. You still look like you normally do. There's just a hologram of a solid object in between you and the observer, blocking line of sight.

[Jack_Simth]

So my BBEG is going to be hiding and casting spells from inside a permanent image. The party will see a 10'X10' pillar 15 ft high with a throne and the BBEG on top. This is all the image. the actual BBEG will be on the ground inside the image casting summon and non directed spells until "seen" by the PC's. My question is how easily will the BBEG be detected? I've always been unsure when they get a WILL save to disbelieve and see through the image. when the BBEG casts spells it will seem that the image on top of pillar is casting and so if PC shoots arrow or ray spell what happens? Should the image look like it takes damage or will the arrow go right through? The BBEG Is a 12th level drow cleric that does have access to one wizard spell per level via ACF.

How do i play this.
Thanks
Well, as noted:
All by itself, Permanent Image is a poor choice, as it's static while the caster isn't concentrating (which, of course, makes it rather difficult to do other things, due to the standard action cost). Really easy to ID that the caster up top isn't casting.

So go with the pillar, but don't use that casting to put the BBEG at the top. Instead:
1) Make a hollow pillar with Invisible Spell (Wall of Stone) (Invisible Spell is from Cityscape, Wall of Stone is from The Player's Handbook). It's open at the top, and has a (locked) door cut into it somewhere at the bottom for ease-of-use. Possibly an emergency trapdoor the Cleric can trigger.
2) Place a Permanent Image of a normal pillar over and around the actual hollow pillar, with an image of the Cleric (in formal regailia with throne) ducking inside it at the top.
3) Make sure Project Image (again, Player's Handbook) is on the caster's list (although as a Cleric-12, you'll need some scrolls or something - and yes, with some collaboration, it's entirely possible to get a Divine scroll of an Arcane spell - it's normally used as a loophole for Archivists, but it works for this, too).

Pillar blocks Line-of-effect. BBEG is safe inside from most things.
Illusion blocks line-of-sight for everyone who doesn't interact with it, and keeps doing so for those who fail their saves.
For 'normal' interaction, BBEG just uses the Permanent Image, concentrating and controlling it like normal.
If the BBEG needs to "show power" (or fight), then BBEG uses a scroll of Project Image as a casting relay.

You can skip the Project Image and use holes sufficient to allow line-of-effect in the bottom of the pillar (one square foot per side, but it doesn't need to be a square - 144 holes each of which has a one square inch area will do), but you'll need to figure out a way to keep the image at the top moving while the BBEG is doing other things. Sonorous Hum (Spell Compendium) plus Major Image (The Player's Handbook) perhaps. An allied caster with Major Image who's in on it. A familiar with a Ring of Spell Storing (loaded with Major Image). An intelligent magic item with Major Image as part of it's powers (possibly an Item Familiar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm)). Do keep in mind: You don't need to explain to the PCs how things were done, necessarily. They'd need to investigate.

[sleepyphoenixx]

An illusory wall is only 1 inch thick. Are you suggesting it doesn't block line of sight?


It's not making you seem like anything else. You still look like you normally do. There's just a hologram of a solid object in between you and the observer, blocking line of sight.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D operates in 5ft squares. If you're sharing the same square as a figment you're not hiding behind it, you're overlapping it.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, he can't. Spells with invalid targets fail, and the caster knows it failed.

I don't know any rule that says that the caster knows the spell has failed.
Do we have a rule for this? I'm not aware of it and couldn't find it. Can you point me to it?

[Thac0 Redeye]

thank you all for the input. Here's some extra info. this battle is the end of part one of the "canned" 3.0 adventure City of the Spider Queen. Since we are playing 3.5 with various house rules I have to tweek and twist and fill in added stuff to make it compatible. I usually do this anyway but the adventure is lacking on how certain things are supposed to work.

Conditions in area: the entire complex is warded against invisibility and has permanent desecrate plus protection from good. The illusion was created and made permanent by a shadow adept wizard. (who is now dead) The goal is to cast spells from "concealment" that are area effect and summoning to start. When the party is beaten down some and distracted by the summoned creatures, will spring out and attack. The book has no dimensions or details on the illusion or how the "BBEG" on top is supposed to act or be played. Its very short on details. But I like the idea. The illusion only needs to confuse the party for 3-4 rounds.
So I like the spell Benign Projection (thanks sleepyphoenixx) and I'll have a thin metal framework in place on the outside of the 10' square at each corner. this will support a block of wood or something that the arrow will hit if the aim is on. (so the arrow or ray won't go all the way through). Plus the BBEG is a Drow so as far as not taking damage, "Hey you didn't get through spell resistance!!!"

any other thoughts would be appreciated.
thanks

[Troacctid]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D operates in 5ft squares. If you're sharing the same square as a figment you're not hiding behind it, you're overlapping it.
I've never heard anyone argue that an object can't block line of sight unless it blocks a full 5ft square of line of sight. That interpretation flies in the face of not just illusory wall but also the majority of other wall spells in the game.

Let me walk you through this. You are standing in a 5ft square adjacent to an enemy who is standing in the 5ft square next to you. You cast a wall spell that creates an opaque wall 1in thick. You place it on the edge of your space, in between you and the enemy. Does this wall block line of sight? Hopefully your answer is yes. Now, let's say this wall has the option to be a ring, a la wall of fire. Instead of a single panel, you form it in a ring with a 5-ft. diameter, surrounding your square, or, if you prefer, a square that matches the borders of your square. You're sharing a space with it! Does it still block line of sight? Answer: Yes.

Why is this the case? Because of the way concealment works. It cares about squares, but it also cares about the corners and borders of those squares. And in this case, the borders of your square are blocked off by walls that interrupt line of sight. QED.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I've never heard anyone argue that an object can't block line of sight unless it blocks a full 5ft square of line of sight. That interpretation flies in the face of not just illusory wall but also the majority of other wall spells in the game.

Let me walk you through this. You are standing in a 5ft square adjacent to an enemy who is standing in the 5ft square next to you. You cast a wall spell that creates an opaque wall 1in thick. You place it on the edge of your space, in between you and the enemy. Does this wall block line of sight? Hopefully your answer is yes. Now, let's say this wall has the option to be a ring, a la wall of fire. Instead of a single panel, you form it in a ring with a 5-ft. diameter, surrounding your square, or, if you prefer, a square that matches the borders of your square. You're sharing a space with it! Does it still block line of sight? Answer: Yes.

Why is this the case? Because of the way concealment works. It cares about squares, but it also cares about the corners and borders of those squares. And in this case, the borders of your square are blocked off by walls that interrupt line of sight. QED.

FFS, it's literally spelled out in the rules for determining line of sight that you're using squares to do it.


Line of sight establishes whether you can see something
else represented on the battle grid. Presupposing you can
see, determine line of sight by drawing an imaginary line
between your space and the target’s space. If any such line
isn’t blocked, then you have line of sight to the target, and if
it’s a creature, it has line of sight to you. The line isn’t blocked
if it doesn’t intersect or even touch squares that block line
of sight.

QED.

[Troacctid]

FFS, it's literally spelled out in the rules for determining line of sight that you're using squares to do it.



QED.
Right. The line is touching a square that blocks line of sight. Therefore, line of sight is blocked.

[Jay R]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D operates in 5ft squares. If you're sharing the same square as a figment you're not hiding behind it, you're overlapping it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? D&D movement is abstracted to 5-foot squares, and so are some spell effects, but most things aren't.

An illusory wall (also a figment) is one foot thick, and used to hide things.
Races have varying heights that rarely divide by exactly 5 feet.
etc.
It's simply not true that everything in D&D is a multiple of five feet wide. PCs are certainly not assumed to be five-foot wide with a square cross section.

The statement that "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else" means that I can't make a human look like an orc, not that I can't stand inside an illusion larger than myself and not be seen.

[Zanos]

I don't know any rule that says that the caster knows the spell has failed.
Do we have a rule for this? I'm not aware of it and couldn't find it. Can you point me to it?

Spell Failure
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
Nothing concrete here. It seems weird to argue that a caster can't sense a failed casting, but they could, with the least generous ruling, still roll an easy spellcraft check to determine that the effects did not occur.

A creature that successfully saves against an effect that has no obvious physical repercussions feels a hostile force or a tingle, but can’t deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted effect, the effect’s creator senses that the effect has failed. A caster can’t sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect spells or area spells, or against similar abilities.
However, you can sense if a saving throw succeeds.

More importantly though, you can't change an illusion to react to a spell as an immediate action without doing something to enable that. He'd have to ready his own action or cast celerity to get a standard action to change the illusion to conform to presumed effects of the spell that was not cast.

[Gruftzwerg]

Nothing concrete here. It seems weird to argue that a caster can't sense a failed casting, but they could, with the least generous ruling, still roll an easy spellcraft check to determine that the effects did not occur.
Imho using the given rules + "common sense" covers this up perfectly:

1) Spells with sensible effects (e.g. Enlarge Person, Fireball) are easily to confirm if the cast failed or not.

2) Spells without sensible effects (e.g. Charm) are harder to confirm and might cause an opposed check. If the target succeeded a spellcraft check to know what spell has been cast, he could try to bluff the caster (bluff vs sense motive).

3) If the caster has some way to see/sense magic (e.g. Detect Magic) he could visually confirm if an effect gets added onto the target and even do a spellcraft DC: 20+spellLvL check to confirm that his spell is in effect and not some trigger based magic (e.g. Magical defenses via Contingency)

4) A specific case would be failed arcane spells due to armor. Here the cast itself has failed, and imho the caster should be aware of this.

Imho it seems we have some options to roll with here and I'm fine with em.



However, you can sense if a saving throw succeeds.
While your quote disagrees with your statement, I think I get what you mean. (see above) If the spell has visuals or audio effects, it is easily confirmed by "senses".



More importantly though, you can't change an illusion to react to a spell as an immediate action without doing something to enable that. He'd have to ready his own action or cast celerity to get a standard action to change the illusion to conform to presumed effects of the spell that was not cast.
I would like to contest this argument:

5) Take Mirror Image as simple example. They react automatically to AoE spells.

6) Major Image is the next one. While you can "concentrate" on the spell, its purpose is to "move" the image within "range", not for reactions (outside of your turn).
But the spell calls out that you can let the image react accordingly to attacks, without any action cost demands (interpret this as you will, but requesting any action costs more than an immediate action would make this dysfunctional).