3.5E: PERMANENT ILLUSION
Harold Groot
a moveable person or object. For example, in the published adventure
"Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land" we have the possessed Mourngrym
marching around with an illusionary Pendant Of Ashaba created using a
PERMANENT ILLUSION spell.
Reading the spell description, however, it doesn't seem to indicate
that such a use is possible. There is nothing under PERMANENT
ILLUSION (or the base spell SILENT IMAGE) to indicate that a person or
object can be the target of the spell. It only talks about affecting
an area. It also says that it takes concentration by the spellcaster
to move an image around within that area.
From the SRD:
Permanent Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Effect: Figment that cannot extend beyond a 20-ft. cube + one 10-ft.
cube/level (S)
Duration: Permanent (D)
This spell functions like silent image, except that the figment
includes visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements, and the
spell is permanent. By concentrating, you can move the image within
the limits of the range, but it is static while you are not
concentrating.
Material Component: A bit of fleece plus powdered jade worth 100 gp.
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.
Contrast those with another spell description where the spell can
affect an area or be cast upon a movable object:
Silence
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point
in space
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the
affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible,
spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever
issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast
on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a
mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect
then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling
creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell
resistance, if any. Items in a creature�s possession or magic items
that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance,
but unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell provides
a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.
In SILENCE it specifically mentions casting the spell on a person or
object and also talks about an unwilling target getting a saving throw
(and spell resistance). In PERMANENT IMAGE there is no mention of
casting the spell on an object and no mention of a saving throw or
spell resistance if the target is unwilling. It really doesn't seem
from the spell description that it is intended to be cast on a person
or object. Yet if memory serves, the spell descriptions of PERMANENT
ILLUSION in 1E/2E were written the same way and PERMANENT ILLUSIONS
have been put on mobile people/objects all this time.
Oh, it's clear that =some= illusion spells can be used this way. For
example, we have the DISGUISE SELF spell (which would be pretty
useless if it didn't move with you). But the spell description for
DISGUISE SELF has a range of "Personal" and a target of "You".
The PHBErrata and MAINFAQ35 don't seem to say anything on the subject.
Is there anything official that mentions that the PERMANENT ILLUSION
spell can be used this way?
Tetsubo
> that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance,
> but unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell provides
> a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.
>
>
> In SILENCE it specifically mentions casting the spell on a person or
> object and also talks about an unwilling target getting a saving throw
> (and spell resistance). In PERMANENT IMAGE there is no mention of
> casting the spell on an object and no mention of a saving throw or
> spell resistance if the target is unwilling. It really doesn't seem
> from the spell description that it is intended to be cast on a person
> or object. Yet if memory serves, the spell descriptions of PERMANENT
> ILLUSION in 1E/2E were written the same way and PERMANENT ILLUSIONS
> have been put on mobile people/objects all this time.
>
> Oh, it's clear that =some= illusion spells can be used this way. For
> example, we have the DISGUISE SELF spell (which would be pretty
> useless if it didn't move with you). But the spell description for
> DISGUISE SELF has a range of "Personal" and a target of "You".
>
> The PHBErrata and MAINFAQ35 don't seem to say anything on the subject.
> Is there anything official that mentions that the PERMANENT ILLUSION
> spell can be used this way?
>
>
One question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction
regarding illusions is: Do they age with their surroundings? If you cast
a permanent illusion to hide a door in a wall, what happens as that wall
ages and weathers? Does the illusion keep pace? Or do you end up with
this shiny, clean wall section that screams 'illusion here'?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Harold Groot
wrote:
> One question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction
>regarding illusions is: Do they age with their surroundings? If you cast
>a permanent illusion to hide a door in a wall, what happens as that wall
>ages and weathers? Does the illusion keep pace? Or do you end up with
>this shiny, clean wall section that screams 'illusion here'?
>Tetsubo
It seems pretty clear to me by the spell description that the illusion
shouldn't age, but the Standard Literary Convention doesn't want to
leave such obvious clues lying around when the walls get subjected to
long years of weathering and the illusion doesn't.
Maybe we have to have PCs research a 7th level spell "PERMANENT
CAMOUFLAGE ILLUSION" that does this - automatically blends in with the
surroundings, even if the surroundings change. Since it's been used
in many books and modules it apparently exists but isn't taught in the
current Wizard Schools. <g>
Hadsil
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:34:10 -0500, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net>
Such things are clue points. If the DM wants to give the PCs a clue
that there's an illusion, then the illusion has this subtle difference
with its surroundings. If the DM doesn't want to give a specific
clue, then the illusion matches perfectly.
Gerald Katz
Vincenzo Beretta
> shouldn't age, but the Standard Literary Convention doesn't want to
> leave such obvious clues lying around when the walls get subjected to
> long years of weathering and the illusion doesn't.
I always had the impression that illusions had some form of "artificial
intelligence" - for the lack of a better term. An illusory diamond, for
example, should shine when exposed to a bright light. This implies that the
illusion *is* capable to adapt to changes in its surroundings - the
weathering of a wall being only a change that happens over a longer time.
Harold Groot
I guess I'm used to playing with DMs who have a more restricted view
of how self-sufficient an illusion spell is. When a PC interacts with
an illusion it generally results in a saving throw unless the caster
makes it react appropriately. In our campaign changing the way it
sparkles or shines when a PC holds up a lantern would be considered
something that the spellcaster has to do, not something that the
illusion spell can do by itself.
D.J.
I ran it as the Permanent Ilusion of a diamond reacted to various
tests as if it were a real diamond. Which includes shining a light on
it. But not some of the physical tests, such as scratching it with
another diamond.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
D.J.
Ah, yeah. It would work that way. Thanks for the info.
Vincenzo Beretta
>>out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
>>scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
>>appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
>
> Ah, yeah. It would work that way. Thanks for the info.
I thought about the matter a little bit more. I think that there should also
be a distiction between illusions created in the real world (like holograms)
and illusions generated in the mind of the victim(s). But, if the latter,
then maybe one should "see" what he *thinks* is right. For example, a humble
villager who doesn't know that a diamond can be scratched by another diamond
will not see this effect, whereas a jeweler will see it. This could become a
clue for someone else that the diamond that everybody is seeing actually
exists only in their minds.
Loren Pechtel
Groot) wrote:
>>I always had the impression that illusions had some form of "artificial
>>intelligence" - for the lack of a better term. An illusory diamond, for
>>example, should shine when exposed to a bright light. This implies that the
>>illusion *is* capable to adapt to changes in its surroundings - the
>>weathering of a wall being only a change that happens over a longer time.
>
>I guess I'm used to playing with DMs who have a more restricted view
>of how self-sufficient an illusion spell is. When a PC interacts with
>an illusion it generally results in a saving throw unless the caster
>makes it react appropriately. In our campaign changing the way it
>sparkles or shines when a PC holds up a lantern would be considered
>something that the spellcaster has to do, not something that the
>illusion spell can do by itself.
I would allow an illusion of a diamond to sparkle--the sparkle is
really just a high index of refraction and thus something that can be
designed into the illusion. To the extent a spell allows it I
consider an illusion to be a perfect model--any mundane properties of
the item that the spell can reproduce it reproduces totally faithfully
to the limit of the caster's knowledge. Illusionary diamonds sparkle,
illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary lenses refract.
Loren Pechtel
Agreed. Illusions in the mind behave according to the beliefs of the
subject, not according to what would really happen or what an illusion
of the object could actually reproduce.
Loren Pechtel
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> I ran it as the Permanent Ilusion of a diamond reacted to various
>> tests as if it were a real diamond. Which includes shining a light on
>> it. But not some of the physical tests, such as scratching it with
>> another diamond.
>
> I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
>out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
>scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
>appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
Diamonds don't scratch other diamonds, do they? Besides, why risk it?
Isn't the usual test to see if it scratches glass?
Anyway, I would not allow the illusion to be scratched without a
caster's control and there's no way it could even appear to scratch
anything else even with a caster's control--the illusion doesn't apply
to the other object.
D.J.
<lorenp...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:33:27 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> I ran it as the Permanent Ilusion of a diamond reacted to various
>>> tests as if it were a real diamond. Which includes shining a light on
>>> it. But not some of the physical tests, such as scratching it with
>>> another diamond.
>>
>> I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
>>out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
>>scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
>>appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
>
>Diamonds don't scratch other diamonds, do they? Besides, why risk it?
>Isn't the usual test to see if it scratches glass?
Since diamonds can be used to grind other diamonds, they must be hard
enough to scratch another diamond.
>Anyway, I would not allow the illusion to be scratched without a
>caster's control and there's no way it could even appear to scratch
>anything else even with a caster's control--the illusion doesn't apply
>to the other object.
I do it as the caster placed certain things into the Permanent
Illusion. If the characters who encounter it come up with something
the caster didn't think of to place into the PI, then it can be
spotted easier.
One of my players, I let them use 'common knowledge' info that their
character might know, knew that a diamond can scratch another one;
however, the caster of the PI didn't know that.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:33:27 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> I ran it as the Permanent Ilusion of a diamond reacted to various
>>> tests as if it were a real diamond. Which includes shining a light on
>>> it. But not some of the physical tests, such as scratching it with
>>> another diamond.
>> I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
>> out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
>> scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
>> appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
>
> Diamonds don't scratch other diamonds, do they?
Yes. "Diamond Cut Diamond" is the relevant expression.
> Besides, why risk it?
> Isn't the usual test to see if it scratches glass?
Almost any gem can do THAT. Glass is a 5, maybe up to a 7, on the Mohs
scale. Steel cuts glass, and rubies and diamonds cut steel easily.
Rick Pikul
> Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
> lenses refract.
The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
immune to thermal effects.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Tetsubo
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
>
>>Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>>lenses refract.
>
>
> The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
> focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
> immune to thermal effects.
>
That would be incredibly useful in the real world. But D&D spells don't
work in the real world. Is the texture of D&D reality actually that 'fine'?
Harold Groot
wrote:
>Rick Pikul wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>>>lenses refract.
>> The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
>> focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
>> immune to thermal effects.
> That would be incredibly useful in the real world. But D&D spells don't
>work in the real world. Is the texture of D&D reality actually that 'fine'?
>Tetsubo
I guess it waries from campaign to campaign, but certainly none of the
DMs in the playing groups I've been in let illusions do things like
reflect light. In our campaign, if the caster wants an illusionary
mirror appear to be reflecting things, the caster has to put the
appropriate image in the mirror. While this isn't too difficult with
a single person right in front of the mirror, it doesn't work for two
people looking from different angles (who need to see different
images).
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Rick Pikul wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>>> lenses refract.
>>
>>
>> The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
>> focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
>> immune to thermal effects.
>>
>
> That would be incredibly useful in the real world. But D&D spells
> don't work in the real world. Is the texture of D&D reality actually
> that 'fine'?
>
Depends on who's running the game. In mine, yes. This is one of the
reasons that cross-world characters like the Wanderer can be incredibly
dangerous. Combine knowledge of real-world physics and optics and so on
with the tools magic gives you...
Tetsubo
You bring up an interesting point. If magic can do this in a campaign,
why would you need to import 'real world' thinking? Wouldn't the native
races figure this stuff out while exploring the limits of their worlds
magical structure? Much as we discovered optics in ours. And the
development should take much less time. Because the idea that you can
create a perfect object is much more easily created in a magical
setting. The barrier between concept (a perfect lens) and the actual
creation (the perfect lens) is very thin.
Ubiquitous
> I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
> out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
> scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
> appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
A real diamond would not get scratched.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Rick Pikul wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>>Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>>>lenses refract.
>>
>> The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
>> focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
>> immune to thermal effects.
>
> That would be incredibly useful in the real world. But D&D spells don't
> work in the real world. Is the texture of D&D reality actually that 'fine'?
If I were DM I would not allow it.
Tetsubo
Real diamonds can scratch real diamonds.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com wrote:
>>>I'd say that the scratch test would APPEAR to work. But when you moved
>>>out of the illusory radius, you'd note that the diamond you used was not
>>>scratched after all, even if the illusory one looked like it was and
>>>appeared to have scratched its opposite number.
>>
>> A real diamond would not get scratched.
>
> Real diamonds can scratch real diamonds.
That seems like a silly way to test a diamond!
Matthew Miller
>>> A real diamond would not get scratched.
>> Real diamonds can scratch real diamonds.
> That seems like a silly way to test a diamond!
Presumably you have an "ugly" one you (as an appraiser) use to test -- and
you try to scratch it with the pretty diamonds, rather than the other way
around.
--
Matthew Miller
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Rick Pikul wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>>>>> lenses refract.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
>>>> focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
>>>> immune to thermal effects.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would be incredibly useful in the real world. But D&D spells
>>> don't work in the real world. Is the texture of D&D reality actually
>>> that 'fine'?
>>>
>>
>> Depends on who's running the game. In mine, yes. This is one of
>> the reasons that cross-world characters like the Wanderer can be
>> incredibly dangerous. Combine knowledge of real-world physics and
>> optics and so on with the tools magic gives you...
>>
>
> You bring up an interesting point. If magic can do this in a
> campaign, why would you need to import 'real world' thinking?
Different worldview. The physical possibility existed for us to begin
the climb to our current highly technological society for thousands of
years. The ancient Greeks, Arabic nations, Chinese, and others actually
touched on many of the basic principles, but never really approached the
world in the modern way, for various reasons. The most dominant was that
they didn't have a real NEED to do so, all of what they felt necessary
was being achieved by what they had already. Making a mechanical method
to open a door automatically to impress people with the power of your
god, fine. Extending those principles to something more general, just
generally didn't HAPPEN -- or if it did, it was a curiosity.
In a magical world, much of what you seek to achieve can be done by a
spell *WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING ANY OF THE PHYSICS PRINCIPLES* because it's
a symbolic power. Multiple different methods may be used in different
types of magic to produce the same general effect, and you might never
have reason to recognize -- or care -- that there are some underlying
principles of the mundane world that are interacting with all of the
different types of magic. Alchemists or similar types might come close,
but even they will be working with things that "break" the laws and thus
help HIDE them from immediate view.
Plus, of course, what I have, or you have, if we were dropped into such
a setting, is the benefit of literally hundreds of years of trial,
error, and development in deriving all of those laws of nature.
Magicians are sufficient, for the most part, unto themselves; they have
their own ways of developing things, and even if they accumulate
knowledge between each other, it's not going to be knowledge that
illuminates the way the mundane world works except in an extremely
peripheral way.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>>Anyway, I would not allow the illusion to be scratched without a
>>caster's control and there's no way it could even appear to scratch
>>anything else even with a caster's control--the illusion doesn't apply
>>to the other object.
>
>I do it as the caster placed certain things into the Permanent
>Illusion. If the characters who encounter it come up with something
>the caster didn't think of to place into the PI, then it can be
>spotted easier.
>
>One of my players, I let them use 'common knowledge' info that their
>character might know, knew that a diamond can scratch another one;
>however, the caster of the PI didn't know that.
The thing is being scratched is modifying it--without an illusion that
permits programmed behavior I wouldn't allow that.
The reason I wouldn't allow the other object to be scratched is that
it's always outside the spell--the spell applies only to the fake
diamond, not a volume beyond that.
Loren Pechtel
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Besides, why risk it?
>> Isn't the usual test to see if it scratches glass?
>
> Almost any gem can do THAT. Glass is a 5, maybe up to a 7, on the Mohs
>scale. Steel cuts glass, and rubies and diamonds cut steel easily.
But what else looks like a diamond and is harder than glass?
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:48:43 -0800, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
>> Illusionary diamonds sparkle, illusionary mirrors reflect, illusionary
>> lenses refract.
>
>The latter two would be _really_ useful. Cast an illusion of a large
>focusing mirror or lens and you can have it be flawless, weightless and
>immune to thermal effects.
I wouldn't allow an illusion of a perfect mirror without the caster
having experience with perfect mirrors. The mirror would be no better
than the technology of the day, although as you say, completely heat
resistant.
Loren Pechtel
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Plus, of course, what I have, or you have, if we were dropped into such
>a setting, is the benefit of literally hundreds of years of trial,
>error, and development in deriving all of those laws of nature.
>Magicians are sufficient, for the most part, unto themselves; they have
>their own ways of developing things, and even if they accumulate
>knowledge between each other, it's not going to be knowledge that
>illuminates the way the mundane world works except in an extremely
>peripheral way.
Agreed. Magic is useful but it doesn't give an understanding of the
real world and thus doesn't allow you to expand upon it very well.
This will hamper a magical society because they will be focusing on
improving magic rather than upon things that don't need magic.
Two stories come to mind:
<Spoiler warning>
David Weber's Hell's Gate and Hell Hath no Fury--the meeting of a
technological (although they're below our level) society with a
magical one.
Also, Harry Turtledove's The Road Not Taken (a short story)--the
meeting of Earth with Renisannce-level starfaring aliens. There is an
easy stardrive and antigravity system that mankind never discovered
but which is actually very easy. The thing is they are oddballs of
physics and don't lead to other things--once a race discovers them
they focus on improving them and miss out on what we discovered. Thus
you get the aliens trying to put on a show of force with muskets--when
they're facing modern mechanized infantry.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Start with quartz, at a hardness of 7 and, when found as certain types
of crystal only a short drive from me, sometimes called "Herkimer
diamonds". You can go up from there. Really, there's a dozen minerals or
more which could be mistaken (by naive inspection, anyway) for diamond
and which will scratch glass. Zircon (cubic zirconia is a different
material, usually artificial although some rare natural minerals) can
look diamondlike and has a hardness of 7-7.5; beryl can be colorless
(it's most often seen in greenish shades as emerald and aquamarine) and
has a hardness up to 8; corundum can also be clear, though it is best
known as sapphire and ruby, and has a hardness of 9.
Those are just the most common or well-known. There are many other
examples.
Tetsubo
Undoubtedly. But completely possible.
Tetsubo
If you have even a highly flawed mirror as an example, you can
*imagine* a perfect one. Just saying, "Gee, it would be great if my
reflect weren't distorted", will lead you towards that concept. And with
magic, once you hold the idea in your mind, the 'reality' is simple to
achieve. Far more simple than having to develop the technology to make
an actual perfectly reflective surface.
anon
> Loren Pechtel wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:07:43 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Besides, why risk it?
>>>> Isn't the usual test to see if it scratches glass?
>>> Almost any gem can do THAT. Glass is a 5, maybe up to a 7, on the
>>> Mohs
>>> scale. Steel cuts glass, and rubies and diamonds cut steel easily.
>>
>> But what else looks like a diamond and is harder than glass?
Wiki on Mohs scale:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale>
Rick Pikul
I didn't say perfect, I said flawless. (Yes, those are different things
in this context.)
A flawless mirror simply follows the intended curve without deviation or
blemish. This is something that is not actually hard to encounter, it's
relatively easy to make a small flawless mirror. The problem is
physically making a big one.
A perfect mirror would also have 100% reflectivity.
tussock
> Loren Pechtel wrote:
> > I wouldn't allow an illusion of a perfect mirror without the caster
> > having experience with perfect mirrors. The mirror would be no better
> > than the technology of the day, although as you say, completely heat
> > resistant.
>
> If you have even a highly flawed mirror as an example, you can
> *imagine* a perfect one. Just saying, "Gee, it would be great if my
> reflect weren't distorted", will lead you towards that concept. And with
> magic, once you hold the idea in your mind, the 'reality' is simple to
> achieve. Far more simple than having to develop the technology to make
> an actual perfectly reflective surface.
Dude, everyone knows mirrors are just alchemical scrying portals
into the mirror realm, where all that is dexter becomes sinister.
You'd have to create an illusionary mirror realm with a real portal to
it, which could let people see all sorts of crazy shit in the mirror.
8]
--
tussock
Don't make me start on invisible doors again.
Keith Davies
Had a player who wanted to play an Alienist (arcane caster focused on
the Far Realm/cthulhoid stuff). I had some fun with that... they had a
crystal ball that he discovered watched him back, and I had the PCs roll
a Spot check 'during' a /teleport/ that showed them 'how it actually
worked'.
"Okay, let's /teleport/ back to the capital."
"... I'll walk, thanks."
"But it'd take *weeks*! Do you know how far it is?!"
"Possibly not nearly as far as the /teleport/. I'll walk."
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
brian.b.m...@lmco.com
The DM needs to work out the basic principles behind how magic works
in
his campaign. Everything else follows from those. For example,
suppose
that illusions work by influencing people's perceptions rather than by
altering physical reality in some way. Then the lens or mirror might
seem
to make a great telescope, but it would show the observer what he
expected
to see (possibly influenced by what others reported seeing through it)
rather
than showing him what was actually there. So rather than allowing
this to
become an overly powerful aid to the player characters, a DM could
easily
use it to lead the players astray, with interesting consequences.
--- Brian
Kaos
wrote:
At the same time, any ostensibly competent practicioner of the magic
arts should have a decent understanding of those basic principles.
(Laymen/non-spellcasters could be excused for their ignorance in most
cases.)
As such, unless there were circumstanced by which the party
spellcaster believed the lens was a product of something other than
illusion magic, he would be well aware of this issue in your example.