Illusion = Hallucination
An 'illusion' is a hallucination. With regard to the D&D 4e rules, an illusion is an effect keyword, whose official definition is: 'An Illusion power deceives the mind or the senses'. (PH3, 217.) It is a subjective experience in the mind or the sensations of a creature. The illusionist may plant a perception of a phenomenon in the mind directly, or else manipulate the sensations of the body to simulate the perception of the phenomenon. In either case, the phenomenon itself has no objective existence.
The illusion is a mind-altering or a sensation-altering effect. This hallucination exists completely in the mind. Whether it is a single creature responding to some nightmare while wide awake, or even many creatures suffering mass hysteria - even with each one sharing a same or similar hallucination - the phenomenon exists entirely in the minds of these creatures. It is completely subjective.
The vivid nightmare could be so extreme the bodies even respond psychosomatically with physical symptoms, such as wounds opening up, skin beginning to char as if burning, or so on. Yet it is still strictly subjective even if numerous creatures are in sync with the same imaginary event. A person who can objectively witness the illuded victims, cant see the illusion that they are seeing, and only sees the victims responding to their own hallucinations while their bodies inexplicably produce wounds from nonexistent weapons.
In D&D 4e, as a general rule, an illusion attack deals the 'psychic' damage type. An attack may also exhibit psychosomatic symptoms - may even involve 'fire' damage with the body physically bursting into flames because of strange metabolic reactions. Other damage types are similarly possible. Even untyped damage if psychosomatically forming sword wounds or so on.
This 'psychic' mind-body energy is apparently identical with the energy of the soul, including both the conscious mind and bodily aura ('ki').
Note, powers that grant invisibility typically do so by means of illusion. The target remains unchanged - doesnt become transparent or so on. Rather, the power distorts the senses of creatures viewing the target, so they become blind to the target.
Various classes suit the illusion mechanic.
• The Telepathic Psion could manipulate the minds of other creatures, instilling waking experiences of joy and pleasure - or terror and pain. Similarly other psionic classes. The illusion is a form of possession where the mind of a victim experiences the thoughts and memories that the Psion projects while subtlely or violently taking possession and dominating the victims mind. The bodily aura of the telepath connects with the bodily aura of the target thus accessing the mind of the targets soul.
• Certain kinds of shadow classes could instill 'illusion' as part of hauntings by ghost or vampire or similar deathly creatures. The soul of the departed invades and may even possess the mind of the living victim.
• Divine classes involve the Immortals of the Astral Sea and the Naturals of the Middle World, with both inducing and experiencing visions of celestial glory or hellish punishments. They may even use illusion for communication by means of transplanar visions, especially for petition and guidance.
• As a jack-of-all-trades the Wizard may engage any of the above. Ancient Fey Wizards pioneered mind-altering spells. Other arcane classes may engage illusion similarly.
By the way, the word 'illusion' derives etymologically from Latin illudare meaning to 'toy with' someone, making a game out of them, mocking them. It relates to Latin ludare meaning to 'play' a game, whence the English word 'ludicrous'. The illusionist makes laughing stocks out the victims when every one else can see them responding to imaginary events.
Conjuration ≠ Illusion
An illusion lacks objective existence - being only a distortion of the experience in the mind of a creature. By contrast, a 'conjuration' is a magical effect that does have objective existence. It isnt a hallucintation, but rather something that physically exists that anyone can see. The conjuration may be a material object, but it may also be a phenomenon of energy, like radiant light, thunder of sound, even a force, or so on.
In the context of a conjuration, I propose the term 'apparition'. As a general rule, an apparition is a physical object made out of light. (Compare a three-dimensional hologram being a shape made entirely out of light. Star Wars has the scene of C3PO delivering a holographic message from Obi-Wan Kenobi to Princess Leah. Here this would qualify as an apparition.) Using the keywords of D&D 4e, an apparition is a 'construct' that isnt made out of a solid substance. Typically the apparition is a construct made out of 'radiant' energy, namely a being of light. The Unseen Servant ritual would be understood to produce an invisible apparition, a 'force construct', that can do tasks. Likewise the Mage Hand cantrip. Many 'quasi-real' conjurations are an appariton in the form of a 'radiant force construct' that looks real and feels real. It makes sound on impact but may also include 'thunder' energy to produce appropriate sounds, or so on. (Compare the Star Trek 'holodeck' and the X-Men combat 'training room'.) For a less typical example, an apparation could be a 'thunder construct', an invisible entity of distinctive shape, of pure explosive shockwave.
Essentially, the apparation is an immaterial form that objectively exists. What distinguishes an apparition from other constructs is the fact it is made out of energy. One could refer to a normal construct that is made out of solid materials as an 'untyped construct'.
Several classes suit the use of an apparition.
• A Telekinetic Psion could form an appirition by telekinetically manipulating force and radiant energy, thus shaping it to build an autonomous construct. A Shaper Psion who manifests the ideas of the mind as physical reality, 'conjures' these manifestations whose mechanics are a 'radiant force construct' - sort of like an angelic apparition from a realm of ideas. A being of intellectual light. Other psionic classes could use this mechanic with similar flavors. For example, a Monk power could project ones own bodily aura - namely the ki - to manifest as luminous forms.
• A shadow class could use the apparition mechanic, in the same way a ghost does. In this case, the radiant light and telekinetic force is precisely the same as thing as the luminous manifestations of the psionic ki - namely the former bodily auras of the departed souls. These souls shine an eerie ghostly light into the oppressive darkness of the plane of Shadowfell. The light of these souls sometimes manifest in the Middle World, often tainted and obscure because of the life-dimming, dark, cold, necrotic energies of the shadow power sources.
• Divine classes can make use of the apparition mechanic - in the sense of angelic apparitions, haloes, auras, and so on. This 'radiant' energy is identical to the bodily aura of the psionic ki and the Shadowfell ghosts. Yet the infinite light perfuses these souls with the mystical splendor, bliss, and enlightenment. Certain domains of the Astral Sea radiate this mystic glory, as the infinite light pierces these ideal realms to illumine the cosmos.
• Of course, as jacks-of-all-trades, the Wizard and other arcane classes can engage any of the above uses of an apparition. Perhaps an Artificer could even make some kind of magic item out of light itself, being a 'radiant construct', an apparition.
Control Shadow
Especially when using the shadow power source, certain magical effects involve the manipulation of darkness, often in the form of shadowy forms. This darkness may merely be the absence of light, but may be a tangeable oppressive darkness. This latter darkness may evoke deathly energies of the plane of the Shadowfell, possibly with cold and necrotic energies, and negating radiant energy. Conditions may include dazed, stunned, and unconscious, and phenomena such as amnesia. Some shadow walkers vanish from the Middle World into the Shadowfell and reemerge elsewhere to achieve ethereality and teleportation.
The D&D 3e Planes of Dream and Shadow
In previous editions, 'shadow magic' added 'extradimensional energies' that added a 'quasi-real' conjuration in addition to the hallucination. These 'energies' seem identical to the apparition described above, being a construct comprising energies that could range from 'force' to 'fire'.
Unfortunately, the former Plane of Shadow remained poorly defined, but as a place where thoughts are substantively real, it seems identical to the Plane of Dream, an other place poorly defined. It was possible to travel thru this mercurial Dream-Shadow space to achieve teleportation effects, as an alternate route instead of thru the Astral plane.
The D&D 4e Psionic Energy
What previous editions used to allude to as the Plane of Dream-Shadow is identical to what D&D 4e calls 'psionic energy'.
Psionic Power, 84: Psionic energy is a boundless sea of potential, limited only by the imagination. Objects that exist nowhere but in your mind can be made real with enough creativity and focus - whether born of fanciful dreams or mind-blasting nightmares.
Psionic energy includes all of the potential worlds in the imaginations of all conscious minds. A person can manifest these potential realities that the intellect can perceive into actual physical realities that the senses of the body can perceive.
The D&D 4e Planes of Astral Sea, Feywild, and Shadowfell
The 4e cosmology reorganized the former cosmologies.
Altho the Shadowfell shares the name 'shadow', it disresembles the former Shadow plane. The Shadowfell is the world of the dead, where most souls of the dead journey to rest. It is a place of numbing cold and life-dimming darkness. The deathly energies of the shadow power source pervade it. It seems to remix certain aspects of the former planes of Negative Energy and Ethereal, especially as the place of ghosts inhabiting gloom and darkness.
The Feywild is a world of cosmic dreams, not only of creatures but even of plants and terrain. It suffuses with whimsical preternatural energies, and the arcane power source pervades it. The Feywild serves as the main the main route of teleportation effects, and in this sense inherits that aspect of the former Astral Plane.
The Astral Sea is the world of spirit, the realm of ideas, where Immortal intellects personify the archetypes that organize the cultures of sentient beings as well as the meaningfulness of any cosmic phenomena. It suffuses with the celestial energies of the divine power source. The mystic light shines brightly there. The Astral Sea seems to remix aspects the former Outer Planes and the Plane of Positive Energy, but also the Astral plane as the way between them.
Many of the illusions created by the assassin fall into this category of illusion. They have nothing to do with ghosts, or souls, or the manipulation of soul stuff. Rather, the assassin taps into the plane of shadow, and uses that energy to manipulate shadow stuff into something that seems like it is more than a mere shadow. The shadow stuff objectivly exists, it is objectivly there. However, because it is desitned to trick the senses, causing someone viewing it to interpret it as something other than what it really is, it is an illusion.
Many of the illusions created by the assassin fall into this category of illusion. They have nothing to do with ghosts, or souls, or the manipulation of soul stuff. Rather, the assassin taps into the plane of shadow.
Heh, unfortunately, theres no such thing as a 'plane of shadow' in D&D 4e. So its definitely a problem if 4e illusionists are trying to use it. Any character can visit the plane of Shadowfell and see for themselves what it is. It isnt the plane of shadow. It doesnt look like the plane of shadow. It doesnt do the kinds of things the plane of shadow did. The Shadowfell cant do the kinds of things the obsolete plane of shadow did.
Some of your claims have to do with [the game's self-definitions] in concert with each other.
Yeah, the illusion tradition of previous traditions is so riddled with self-contradictions its funny.
You define a hologram as a type of conjuration.
Actually, the D&D 4e rules define a hologram as a 'conjuration'. A conjuration is an official keyword that signifies the effect type. Heres its definition.
PH3, 216: 'Conjuration: A conjuration is a thing of magical energy that resembles a creature or an object. Even if a conjuration looks like a creature or displays some degree of sentience, it is not considered a creature.'
Thus, consider the hologram. If you have a construct made out of 'magical energy', including the radiant or force type, and you deceive the viewers by making it look like a creature even when it isnt ... it is strictly a conjuration.
Conjurations objectively exist, and therefore arent illusions. Even when a conjuration falsely takes the appearance of a creature, it still objectively exists, and is therefore a conjuration.
As a rule. If it objectively exists, then it is a conjuration. If it only exists in the minds of creatures, then its an illusion.
However, the game seems to define hologram like apparitions as illusions if those apparitions appear to be something other than what they really are. Illusions do not always deceive the mind by direct "contact," so to speak. Sometimes they do so by deceiving the senses by showing them something that is objectively there, that does objectively exist, but that is not what it objectively seems to be. For example, a hologram is little more than the manipulation of light, but it seems to be a real/physically existing thing; a hologram is an illusion.
You say, anything that 'deceives the mind' qualifies as the magical effect that has the illusion keyword, even if it objectively exists. What you are saying is incorrect. Consider.
• If I use a disguise kit from the equipment list thereby 'deceiving the senses by showing something that is objectively there but that is not what it objectively seems', does the disguise kit gain the 'illusion' keyword? No.
• If I wear camouflage clothing to falsely make myself appear as background vegetation to onlookers, does this gain the illusion keyword? No.
• If I use wildshape magic to deceive the senses of the viewers into thinking Im a beast, does that gain the illusion keyword? No.
• If a Shapechanger deceives, takes the appearance of an enemys friend, is that an illusion? No.
• If I use a conjuration to manifest the appearance of an enemys friend, is that an illusion? Especially no.
All these martial and magical effects objectively exist and *therefore* arent illusions.
Shadow magic uses that energy to manipulate shadow stuff into something that seems like it is more than a mere shadow. The shadow stuff objectivly exists, it is objectivly there.
Here, you are describing *exactly* what a Shaper Psion does.
Heh, unfortunately, theres no such thing as a 'plane of shadow' in D&D 4e. So its definitely a problem if 4e illusionists are trying to use it. Any character can visit the plane of Shadowfell and see for themselves what it is. It isnt the plane of shadow. It doesnt look like the plane of shadow. It doesnt do the kinds of things the plane of shadow did. The Shadowfell cant do the kinds of things the obsolete plane of shadow did.
I am sorry. I misspoke. I meant to say shadowfell. However, you are, once again, incorrect. The shadowfell can do the kind of things that the obsolete plane of shadow did, because the shadowfell is the plane of shadow and the negative energy plane rolled into one. The game makes that fairly evident by, for example, giving shadow power source classes spells that mirror what spells that utalized the plane of shadow did in the past.
Actually, the D&D 4e rules define a hologram as a 'conjuration'. A conjuration is an official keyword that signifies the effect type. Heres its definition.
PH3, 216: 'Conjuration: A conjuration is a thing of magical energy that resembles a creature or an object. Even if a conjuration looks like a creature or displays some degree of sentience, it is not considered a creature.'
Thus, consider the hologram. If you have a construct made out of 'magical energy', including the radiant or force type, and you deceive the viewers by making it look like a creature even when it isnt ... it is strictly a conjuration.
Again, as above: Producing real effects that produce sensory input that matches their objective physical existence is a form of conjuration. Producing real effects that produce sensory input that does not match their objective physical existence is form of an illusion. A hologram produces a real effect. However, as the sensory input it produces tricks the senses, and it is not what it seems to be, it is an illusion.
Conjurations objectively exist, and therefore arent illusions. Even when a conjuration falsely takes the appearance of a creature, it still objectively exists, and is therefore a conjuration.
If its false appearance is physical in nature, you are correct. If its appearance is a trick of the senses, such as the kind of trick produced by a hologram, you are incorrect.
As a rule. If it objectively exists, then it is a conjuration. If it only exists in the minds of creatures, then its an illusion.
Wrong. The rule is, if its sensory input matches its objective existence it is a conjuration. If its sensory input does not match its objective existence it is an illusion. An illusion can be something that exists only in the minds of creatures, or as a real existing entity. What maters is not its existence, but its existence as something that tricks the senses into percieving it to be something other than what it really is.
You say, anything that 'deceives the mind' qualifies as the magical effect that has the illusion keyword, even if it objectively exists. What you are saying is incorrect.
No, it is not. The book itself writes, and I quote: An illusion decieves...the senses. That is what the book says. It does not state that an illusion can only decieve the senses by decieving the mind. In fact, it specifically states that an illusion either decieves the mind, or the senses, meaning that when it states that an illusion decieves the senses it does not mean that it decieves the senses by decieving the mind.
Consider.
• If I use a disguise kit from the equipment list thereby 'deceiving the senses by showing something that is objectively there but that is not what it objectively seems', does the disguise kit gain the 'illusion' keyword? No.
• If I wear camouflage clothing to falsely make myself appear as background vegetation to onlookers, does this gain the illusion keyword? No.
• If I use wildshape magic to deceive the senses of the viewers into thinking Im a beast, does that gain the illusion keyword? No.
• If a Shapechanger deceives, takes the appearance of an enemys friend, is that an illusion? No.
• If I use a conjuration to manifest the appearance of an enemys friend, is that an illusion? Especially no.
And here you get into the ephemral nature of language. There is "decieving the senses," and decieving the senses. All of your examples decieve the senses. Not all of them do so via a supernatural effect. The illusion keyword refers specifically to a supernatural effect. In the case of the wildshape ability, while it might decieve someone into believing that you are an animal, your physical form objectivly becomes that of an animal; thus, it is not the type of deciet produced by an illusion. The same is true of the hspaechanger. As for that "conjuration," if its physical shape objectivly matches that of your friend it is not an illusion. However, if it is in fact simply a shadow (which has an objective existence, much like the hologram), and it matches the appearance of your friend via a supernatural ability that tricks the senses (such as a supernaturally produced hologram), then it is indeed an illusion.
I am sorry Haldrik, but you are wrong. That is all there is to it. You yourself note that the illusion power is described as a power that "decieves the mind or senses." That is or senses.
Heh, as you yourself point out, an illusion can deceive the 'senses'. The sense of sight, the sense of hearing, the sense of smell, the sense of taste, the sense of touch, the sense of balance, the sense of thirst, the sense of hunger, and so on.
The illusion can manipulate a creatures senses. Make it feel upside-down, when it is really rightside-up. Make it feel cold, when really the temperature is warm. Make it feel hungry, even when really it just ate. Make the creature unable to see, when really the room is brightly illuminated.
An illusion can 'deceive the senses' in all these ways. But all these ways exist subjectively, and have no objective reality.
If you produce an effect that objectivly exists.
If you produce an effect that objectively exists - that is made out of 'magical energies' - then according to the rules, it is strictly a 'conjuration'. It cant be an illusion.
The decieves the senses of your foes causing them to believe that it is something other than what it really is, then it is an illusion.
This kind of 'deception' is merely a disguise.
Manipulating a creatures sense of sight to perceive shadows where you are standing is an illusion. Putting on a dark cloak to hide in the shadows isnt an illusion.
Likewise, using magic to actually negate the shining light of radiant energy also isnt an illusion. Just like the Negate Magic power isnt an illusion. Various quench fire effects are likewise not an illusion. They are objective realities. These magical energies actually cancel out existing energies.
This is why invisibility powers often make the invisible target unseen by only one creature. The sense of only that creature is being distorted. All other creatures can plainly see the target.
Toying with the mind of a victim to make them see a loved one when they look at you is an illusion. The false appearance doesnt exist objectively. Putting on a disguise kit, shapechanging, or even conjuring the appearance of the loved one, isnt an illusion. These techniques objectively exist.
Disguise ≠ illusion.
That is all there is to it. That is the long and short of it.
If you produce a real, objective, existing thing, such as a shadow, but you shape it in such a way that it decieves others into believing that it is a real person, then it is an illusion.
This is *exactly* what the Shaper Psion does.
What you refer to as the obsolete 'Plane of Shadow' is *identical* to what D&D 4e calls 'psionic energy'.
Psionic Power, 84:
'Psionic energy is a boundless sea of potential, limited only by the imagination. Objects that exist nowhere but in your mind can be made real with enough creativity and focus - whether born of fanciful dreams or mind-blasting nightmares.'
When a person makes figments of the imagination manifest as objective realities that consist of 'magical energies', it is explicitly a 'conjuration'.
Mastering the ability to weave shadow magic to
create illusions can be a useful skill for the assassin
who wants to focus on subterfuge and misdirection.
The images created by distracting illusion won’t fool
anyone who examines them closely or interacts with
them. Instead, these illusions are meant to cover up
the assassin’s actions. For example, an assassin might
create an illusion of the guard that the assassin just
killed, standing at his assigned post, in order to fool
observers into thinking the guard is still on duty.
Alternatively, an assassin might lure his or her quarry
out into the open by creating an illusion of a trusted
companion beckoning the target urgently to where
the assassin lurks in the shadows.
The description does not say that it affects the minds of people to make them believe something. It specifically states that a person weaves shadow magic. It specifically states that shadow magic is used to create an image. An objective image is created, the image simply is not what it appears to be. As opposed an actual, physical, entity what is created is a trick that fools the senses. The assassin weaves shadows into the image desired. In this case, the word illusion becomes virtually synonymous with the word hologram. A hologram is little more than an image woven via manipulated shadow and light. Indeed, the short description is similar. It states:
The image of a creature flickers and then solidifies as you craft
an illusion meant to cover your dark deeds.
It does not state "you force your enemies to believe that they see an image of your choosing." It explicitly states that you actually create an image, a magical equivalent of a hologram if you will.
Then there is the description of the illusion school of magic:
Using spells of the illusion school, you trick and control your enemies by creating apparitions and false images that confuse and control the senses. Illusion spells can leave your foes frozen in fear or lashing out at imaginary threats. Meanwhile, your allies close in for the kill.
Nothing in that paragraph says that illusions are all in the minds of your foes. Quite the contrary, it states that you are creating actual apparitions and false images. The illusion school of magic, unlike the effects produced by the psionicist, seems more geared towards the creation of actual apparitions, false images that are not what they appear to be.
Your claim that illusion powers must manipulate the mind directly into believing that something is there that is not really there is false. Illusion powers manipulate the mind or the senses into believing that something is there that is not really there. Sometimes they do so by manipulating the mind. Sometimes they do so by creating apparitions, false images. These images objectively exist. Anyone who look at them can see them. Something really is there. But what is there is not what the image pretends to be (which is why it is a false image), but rather a magical trick created by the illusion power. They do fool you into believing that something specific is there that is not really there, but there is something ephemeral and undefined that is really there. An apparition really does appear. A supernatural effect that fools only the senses, as opposed to directly fooling the mind, is still an illusion.
Invisibility that targets the mind to make a person not realize you are there is a type of illusion. But invisibility that actually bends light and shadow around you, using supernatural forces in order to objectivly hide you from sight, is also an illusion. That is what spells like invisibility do. The description for invisibility does not say "you touch the minds of your foes, causing them to believe that you vanish from sight." Quite the contrary, it states:
A creature you choose vanishes from sight.
That vanishing act is not subjective. It is objective. It actually happens.
Hell, look at the assassin's Fortress of Shadow. Its description actually states:
Darkness swirls around you, shielding you from your foes’ eyes.
It explicitly states that an objective thing happens. The illusion doesn't affect peoples minds. It creates objective darkness. That darkness in turn tricks the senses. But the effect itself, while it tricks the senses, exists in objective reality.
I could keep giving quote after quote after quote to prove my point. I am not going to, because I think that anyone who is being reasonable will agree that I have already proven my point. The game just doesn't agree with you. I am sorry. Despite the grief that people sometime give you, you sometimes have very strong arguments on these boards. This thread is just not one of those times though. I don't know what else to tell you...
The feedback is:
The flavor text that mentions 'shadow magic' refers to highly problematic errors from obsolete previous editions. It doesnt and cant exist it D&D 4e. It *strictly* contradicts the rules-as-written concerning the definitions of keywords such as 'illusion' and 'conjuration'. It makes up a plane out of nothing that contradicts the 4e Cosmology. It is *strictly* redundant with the psionic power source.
If anything, the new Executioner Assassin is really a martial-psionic class that telekinetically negates radiant light, telepathically imposes illusions in the minds of creatures, and metacreatively conjures illusions into objective reality.
Seriously, perhapes the Essential Assassin should be a martial-psionic Monk subclass. This way, the subclass would lack any deathly flavor because its 'shadows' dont conjure the deathly shadow energies of the Shadowfell.
This isnt a question of using different power sources to effect the same mechanics. Its about the very concept of 'shadow magic' being strictly impossible and violating fundamental official rules of D&D 4e.
As I have always seen it there are two distinct types of illusions in 4e.
Figments: this type of illusion is projected directly into the target's mind. It' distorts the subject's perception of the outside world, but is a purely internal effect and thus difficult, if not impossible, for others to perceive. This is the type of illusion favored by PSIONIC casters.
Mirages: this type of illusion is a distortion of light and sound. The subject senses are not effected, rather instead world itself is seemingly altered (though not in any physical manner), as such the effect is can usually be perceived by anyone, though it may be easily discernible as fake by non-targets. This is the type of illusion favored by ARCANE casters.
I also like to believe that their is room for a third type of illusion. Based loosely off the function of the spells Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation from previous editions, as well as the Shadowcaster class from the 3.5 Tome of Magic.
Shades: this type of illusion draws draws forth matter/energy from the Shadowfell and shapes it into a semi-tangible form. Such effects may be wispy or incomplete, even obviously fake, but are not entirely unreal and so pose some real danger even if the target 'disbelieves' them. Obciosly this is the type of illusion favored by caster with the SHADOW power source.
I do not see the concept as beeing in any way obslete. The Shadowfell is a physical plane, but it still posses many qualities of the old plane of shadows.
The flavor text of the Essential Executioner Assassin isnt official. The designers are still looking for feedback.
The feedback is:
The flavor text that mentions 'shadow magic' refers to highly problematic errors from obsolete previous editions. It doesnt and cant exist it D&D 4e. It *strictly* contradicts the rules-as-written concerning the definitions of keywords such as 'illusion' and 'conjuration'. It makes up a plane out of nothing that contradicts the 4e Cosmology. It is *strictly* redundant with the psionic power source.
If anything, the new Executioner Assassin is really a martial-psionic class that telekinetically negates radiant light, telepathically imposes illusions in the minds of creatures, and metacreatively conjures illusions into objective reality.
Seriously, perhapes the Essential Assassin should be a martial-psionic Monk subclass. This way, the subclass would lack any deathly flavor because its 'shadows' dont conjure the deathly shadow energies of the Shadowfell.
This isnt a question of using different power sources to effect the same mechanics. Its about the very concept of 'shadow magic' being strictly impossible and violating fundamental official rules of D&D 4e.
And if my argument relied solely on the fluff of the Executioner, maybe you would have a point (for now, though you are deluding yourself if you think any of that fluff is going to change considering how many people love it, or how positive the classes reception has been overall. Which means that the classes fluff is going to end up becoming official very soon). Of course, of all my quotes only one came from the Executioner assassin. The rest came from other products which have already been released, and which are already official. In fact, you know that fluff about using the energy of the shadowfell to create shadow magic which manipulates shadows into illusory effects? Yea, it is present in the first iteration of the assassin's class fluff (which is official). I even gave a quote from one of the original assassin's powers. Fortress of Shadow is not from the E-assassin builds. It is from the O-assassin builds.
Fact of the matter is, you are wrong. That is the end of the story. I am sorry you can't accept that. I am sorry you don't like that. But according to existing fluff, the shadowfell is a combined entity that has subsumed both the plane of shadow from earlier editions and the negative energy plane from earlier editions. As such, it makes perfect sense that shadow magic work within 4e. Shadow magic does not violate any of the fundamental rules of 4e. It is not a fundamental rule of 4e that illusory spells have to directly affect the mind; the rule is that they trick the mind or the senses. Pulling on the energy of shadows, as that energy exists in the shadowfell along with all of its deathly connotations, and using it to manipulate shadows until they appear to be something else, is both an illusion within the context of the 4e rules, and fits perfectly within the thematic of 4e planes of existence. Maybe you subjectively don't like that fluff, but that doesn't mean that the fluff in any way, shape, or form, violates any of the rules or themes of 4e.
Again Haldrik, you don't have a tenable argument here.
A creature you choose vanishes from sight.
That vanishing act is not subjective. It is objective. It actually happens.
Exactly. By means of the illusion power, the target creature vanishes from 'sight'. It is a subjective event in the minds of the bolders.
The illusion doesnt cause the target to vanish from 'reality', because if it did, then according to the rules, it would be 'removed from play'.
Rather, the illusion manipulates the 'sense' of 'sight' of the onlookers. So, as far as they can subjectively see the target is no longer there. But of course, these onlookers are merely blind to the target, really it is still there.
If there are onlookers who are immune to the mental manipulation that the illusion power does, then from their subjective perspective they can see that the target is still really objectively there, plain as day.
Fortress of Shadow: Darkness swirls around you, shielding you from your foes’ eyes.
No big deal. The illusionist can also choose to subjectively see the events that other creatures objectively. So, interpreting the induced blindspots in the other creatures sense of vision as a region of swirling darkness around oneself, is simply an economical representation. This swirling darkness is strictly subjective and only exists in the mind of the illusionist. Other creatures, of course, cant see this subjective swirling darkness. They just see ... nothing ... because their sense of sight has been impaired.
A creature you choose vanishes from sight.
That vanishing act is not subjective. It is objective. It actually happens.
Exactly. By means of the illusion power, the target creature vanishes from 'sight'. It is a subjective event in the minds of the bolders.
The illusion doesnt cause the target to vanish from 'reality', because if it did, then according to the rules, it would be 'removed from play'.
Rather, the illusion manipulates the 'sense' of 'sight' of the onlookers. So, as far as they can subjectively see the target is no longer there. But of course, these onlookers are merely blind to the target, really it is still there.
If there are onlookers who are immune to the mental manipulation that the illusion power does, then from their subjective perspective they can see that the target is still really objectively there, plain as day.
There is nothing about the power which says that it directly affects anyone's sense of sight. It says only that it makes the target vanish from sight. It is equally logical to believe that the power tricks people into seeing the target vanish from sight by bending light and shadow around the target. Indeed, as I pointed out, Fortress of Shadow explicitly states that it makes the target invisible by bending shadows around the target (not effecting anyone's mind), and fortress of shadow is an illusion spell. That means that illusion spells can operate by creating objectively existing mirages by manipulating light and shadows to create the illusion (read: magical hologram) of a physical reality. The exact mechanics of the Wizard's invisibility spell are ambiguous, but there is no evidence to indicate that it operates by altering anyone's state of mind. Indeed, as the published, official, cannon surrounding the illusion school of wizardly magic states that the school produces apparitions and false images (again, read: mirages), it is quite logical to assume that when the spell simply states that it makes a person vanish from sight it does so without any direct mental manipulation of any kind.
For example, the distracting illusion spell states that.
This power, Distracting Illusion, that conjures an image of a person deserves the 'conjuration' keyword. It is an example of how the Essential Assassin violates fundamental rules in D&D 4e Rules Compendium. It is close to design incompetence.
The images created by distracting illusion won’t fool anyone who examines them closely or interacts with them.
It is possible their 'interaction' is to test whether their eyes are deceiving them or not. Is what they see there really there? Will their sense of touch contradict their sense of sight? In this case, what they see has no objective reality, because it really isnt there.
Nevertheless, the 'interaction' implies an objectively existing 'conjuration' made of 'shadow energy', which by definition would then be one of the 'magical energies' that defines the conjuration keyword.
For example, an assassin might create an illusion of the guard that the assassin just killed, standing at his assigned post, in order to fool observers into thinking the guard is still on duty.
Then again, this illusion power could simply be manipulating the 'sense' of sight of the 'observers', after all. Thus really is a strictly subjective event that exists nowhere except in the minds of those observers who affected by this sense-distorting illusion power.
It explicitly states that you actually create an image, a magical equivalent of a hologram if you will.
This image is the same thing as what you see when you imagine ... image-ine ... or dream. It is a subjectively perceived image that has no objective existence outside of ones mind.
In this case, the word illusion becomes virtually synonymous with the word hologram. A hologram is little more than an image woven via manipulated shadow and light. Indeed, the short description is similar. It states:The image of a creature flickers and then solidifies as you craft
an illusion meant to cover your dark deeds.
Conjuration made out of radiant energy = hologram made out of light
This is an example of energy manipulation. Conjuration and evocation. Physically existing energy.
The illusion keyword itself says, illusion affects the senses.
Not quite. It says that illusions deceive the senses. That is certainly a form of affect. But it doesn't clarify by exactly what mechanics. The combined fluff from various different sources in the game makes it quite clear that deceiving the senses by creating a false image out of bent light and shadow does count as an illusion. That, by the way, is still a form of sensational affect.
Fortress of Shadow: Darkness swirls around you, shielding you from your foes’ eyes.
No big deal. The illusionist can also choose to subjectively see the events that other creatures objectively. So, interpreting the induced blindspots in the other creatures sense of vision as a region of swirling darkness around oneself, is simply an economical representation. This swirling darkness is strictly subjective and only exists in the mind of the illusionist. Other creatures, of course, cant see this subjective swirling darkness. They just see ... nothing ... because their sense of sight has been impaired.
Except, that is not what the power's description states. In my field of study this would be called an intentional misreading. You are adding information not present in the text to manipulate your reading of the text to match your desired reading. Texts are open for all sorts of Derridian play, but you have to root that play in the text's existing material. Otherwise, your interpretation has nothing to do with the text and everything to do with your own subjective desires; you haven't only lost the center, but the surrounding body as well. The existing material does not back up your description. What the existing material explicitly states is that you create swirling shadows, surrounding yourself in them, and use them to deceive the senses of your foes so that they do not realize you are there. You are not altering your foes mental state so that they subjectively perceive a new blind-spot, you are literally darkening the terrain in order to produce an (objectively existing) new blind spot. You create an objective effect in order to deceive the senses.
Using spells of the illusion school, you trick and control your enemies by creating apparitions and false images that confuse and control the senses. Illusion spells can leave your foes frozen in fear or lashing out at imaginary threats. Meanwhile, your allies close in for the kill.
According to the Mage Wizard description, it explicitly says: illusions 'control the senses'!
Note the reallife word 'apparition' can refer to an objectively existing sight, such as a suddenly seeing a strange phenomenon, or can refer to a subjective 'vision' such as the 'apparitions of the Virgin Mary'. In the case of the Mage illusion school it refers to subjective phantasms that have no objective existence.
Nothing in that paragraph says that illusions are all in the minds of your foes.
Are you kidding, the paragraph explicitly says illusions 'control the senses'! An illusion manipulates the senses of the creatures to simulate a phenomenon that their mind experiences. This is extreme virtual reality. This phenomenon has no objective existence. The phenomenon depends strictly on their senses (especially vision) and is a subjective event in their minds only.
Using the D&D 4e terms:
The following concepts qualify for the illusion keyword: the old 'figment', 'glamor', and 'phantasm' are strictly subjective mental events, that have no objective existence outside the creatures mind. These are inherently telepathic in nature.
The following concepts qualify for the conjuration keyword: the old 'mirage' and 'shadow conjuration'. These are actually made out of reallife energy, including radiant light, thunder sound, and force. These are inherently metacreative in nature.
Finally, I agree, there is a place for actual conjurations of 'shadow energy' from the Shadowfell, with the following caveat: 'This type of [conjuration] draws draws forth matter/energy [= 'magical energies'] from the Shadowfell and shapes it into a semi-tangible form. Such effects may be wispy or incomplete, even obviously fake, but are not unreal and so pose some real danger'.
As I have always seen it there are two distinct types of illusions in 4e.Figments: this type of illusion is projected directly into the target's mind. It' distorts the subject's perception of the outside world, but is a purely internal effect and thus difficult, if not impossible, for others to perceive. This is the type of illusion favored by PSIONIC casters.
Mirages: this type of illusion is a distortion of light and sound. The subject senses are not effected, rather instead world itself is seemingly altered (though not in any physical manner), as such the effect is can usually be perceived by anyone, though it may be easily discernible as fake by non-targets. This is the type of illusion favored by ARCANE casters.
I also like to believe that their is room for a third type of illusion. Based loosely off the function of the spells Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation from previous editions, as well as the Shadowcaster class from the 3.5 Tome of Magic.
Shades: this type of illusion draws draws forth matter/energy from the Shadowfell and shapes it into a semi-tangible form. Such effects may be wispy or incomplete, even obviously fake, but are not entirely unreal and so pose some real danger even if the target 'disbelieves' them. Obciosly this is the type of illusion favored by caster with the SHADOW power source.
I do not see the concept as beeing in any way obslete. The Shadowfell is a physical plane, but it still posses many qualities of the old plane of shadows.
Using spells of the illusion school, you trick and control your enemies by creating apparitions and false images that confuse and control the senses. Illusion spells can leave your foes frozen in fear or lashing out at imaginary threats. Meanwhile, your allies close in for the kill.
According to the Mage Wizard description, it explicitly says: illusions 'control the senses'!
Note the reallife word 'apparition' can refer to an objectively existing sight, such as a suddenly seeing a strange phenomenon, or can refer to a subjective 'vision' such as the 'apparitions of the Virgin Mary'. In the case of the Mage illusion school it refers to subjective phantasms that have no objective existence.Nothing in that paragraph says that illusions are all in the minds of your foes.
Are you kidding, the paragraph explicitly says illusions 'control the senses'! An illusion manipulates the senses of the creatures to simulate a phenomenon that their mind experiences. This is extreme virtual reality. This phenomenon has no objective existence. The phenomenon depends strictly on their senses (especially vision) and is a subjective event.
Um, again, you are wrong. You have a really bad habit on focusing on small tidbits of sentences and not reading sentences in their entirety. It does not say "all illusion spells control the senses." It says they "confuse or control" the senses. Some of them might control senses directly. Others merely confuse the senses, because the apparition/false image appears to be something it is not.
Additionally, your comments on the word apparition actually work in my favor. You yourself note that an apparition can be an objectively existing sight, or a subjective vision. Now, I will have to take your word for it because the copy of the dictionary I have before me says only that an apparition is a "remarkable or unexpected thing that appears," and says nothing about subjective visions or hallucinations. But my dictionary is not the OED, so it is possible a more exhaustive definition would cover your usage (though I am not sure that it would). But if you are correct, the fact that an apparition can be an objective phenomenon means that if the text was not trying to invoke the meaning of an illusionist creating objective phenomena it would have to explicitly clarify as much. The fact that it doesn't indicates that it is describing the illusionist as being capable of creating either type of apparition described by you... which certainly fits with its follow up that such apparitions can "confuse or control the senses," because depending on the type of apparition produced either statement could be true.
Again Haldrik, you do not have a tenable argument.
Just to be clear, your texts refer to 3e and dont properly exist in 4e. That said, I agree, with the gist of your point.
Using the D&D 4e terms:
The following concepts qualify for the illusion keyword: the old 'figment', 'glamor', and 'phantasm' are strictly subjective mental events, that have no objective existence outside the creatures mind. These are inherently telepathic in nature.
The following concepts qualify for the conjuration keyword: the old 'mirage' and 'shadow conjuration'. These are actually made out of reallife energy, including radiant light, thunder sound, and force. These are inherently metacreative in nature.
Finally, I agree, there is a place for actual conjurations of 'shadow energy' from the Shadowfell, with the following caveat: 'This type of [conjuration] draws draws forth matter/energy [= 'magical energies'] from the Shadowfell and shapes it into a semi-tangible form. Such effects may be wispy or incomplete, even obviously fake, but are not unreal and so pose some real danger'.
And again Haldrik, these are claims you make, they are not claims made by the 4e iteration of the D&D game. According to the 4e iteration of the D&D game, the rules and fluff state that figments, glamors, phantasms, mirages, and shadow "conjurations," all qualify as illusions. The rules explicitly state that apparitions and false images, be they created via direct mental manipulation or the alteration of light and shadow, be they capable of controlling senses directly or only confusing them, are all illusions. Anything that deceives the mind or the senses, by any supernatural means, is an illusion.
I don't have all of the books, and I don't claim to be an expert, but don't the rules state that in order to affect somebody, you need to have line of sight and line of effect to them?
If the party wizard makes the rogue invisible and the rogue takes the lead and passes a corner, can somebody around the corner see him or not? And at what range?
For example, the distracting illusion spell states that.
This power, Distracting Illusion, that conjures an image of a person deserves the 'conjuration' keyword. It is an example of how the Essential Assassin violates fundamental rules in D&D 4e Rules Compendium. It is close to design incompetence.
Hardly.
A conjuration creates an actual physical presence. It might physically create matter from nothing, or it might be an otherwise invisible force effect, but either way it can be physically interacted with.
Conversely an illusion has no physical presence, though by definition it must have an observable presence. Whether that presence is a purely mental image or light/shadow twisted into alternate form is largely irrelevant.
light/shadow twisted into alternate form
Energy objectively physically exists.
Thats why they call it 'physics'.
Radiant energy physically objectively exists. Manipulating 'light and shadow' means exactly the same thing as manipulating the presence and absence of radiant energy. It is telekinesis of a physically existing energy.
Whether a conjuration is of solid stone or fluid light, it objectively exists.
Not only that. The definition of 'conjuration' doesnt even refer to solid matter. It specifically says a conjuration is made out of 'magical energies'.
Thus when 3e defines 'shadow magic' as 'partially real from extradimensional energy', then shadow magic is by definition exactly the same thing as what 4e defines as a 'conjuration', namely, 'a thing of magical energies that resembles an object or creature'.
By the way, the conjuration isnt even really the apparent object or creature, but merely 'resembles' one, thus sotospeak deceives the onlookers into thinking it actually is one.
3e shadow magic = 4e conjuration
a purely mental image
If it is a purely 'mental' energy then it exists in the mind. Then it has no objective reality, but is purely subjective. Thereby a proper illusion even if the hallucination exists in the minds of several creatures simultaneously.
On the other hand, if this mental image really does have an objective presence, then this physically existing 'mental' image is made out of 'psionic energy', probably 'psychic energy', and is still by definition a conjuration. This is exactly what the Shaper Psion does: make mental images achieve an objective presence. Shaper powers use the 'conjuration' keyword.
light/shadow twisted into alternate form
Energy objectively physically exists.
Thats why they call it 'physics'.
Radiant energy physically objectively exists. Manipulating 'light and shadow' means exactly the same thing as manipulating the presence and absence of radiant energy. It is telekinesis of a physically existing energy.
It might work that way if D&D was set in a 'realistic' world governed by what we currently understand as scientific principle, but that is not the case. D&D is instead set in a purely fantasy based world, which while it might superficially resemble our own, has an entirely different underlying 'physics' (fire need not be the result of complex chemical reactions but merely a release of the elemental fire contained within all matter).
In such a setting light and shadow possess presence, but lack substance. Placing the manipulation of such forces plainly under the heading of illusion.
The shaper uses psionic energy to produce effects that resemble creatures. Those effects have a physical reality. Because those effects have a physical reality they are conjurations. If those effects did not have a physical reality, and only appeared to have a physical reality, they would be illusions. However, the shaper's creations do have a real physical reality. What the assassin produces with his distracting illusion spell is not the same thing. It is not a "purely mental image" in the sense that it exists only in the minds of others. It really does exist; it is crafted out of shadow and light, and anyone who looks in its direction can percieve it. However, where the shaper's conjurations have a physical aspect, the assassin's distracting shadow does not. Thus, one is a conjuration, the other is an illusion, and everything follows the logic and rules of 4e.
Well... everything except for this far out misreading of the 4e rules and fluff that you are trying to push in this thread.
This is about clear mechanical rules. Consistent keywords. Adjudicating the (too often broken) uses of illusion. Solid game design. Streamlining. And making sense.
This isnt about 'its magic' freeform active imagination.
This is about clear mechanical rules. Consistent keywords. Adjudicating the (too often broken) uses of illusion. Solid game design. Streamlining. And making sense.
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about your argument to be about any of that. Because, if your argument was really about consistent keywords, the game already has those: if a power creates a physical reality that resembles a creature it uses the keyword conjuration; if a power produces damage via a searing light it uses the keyword radiant; if a power produces an effect that fools the mind or senses it uses the keyword illusion; so on and so forth, with great consistency. If your argument was really about solid game design, the game already has that. I won't bother making my case on that point. People talk about why they love 4e often enough on these boards. If your argument was about broken uses of illusion you would be quoting overpowered or underpowered mechanics, not complaining that some illusion powers produce affects of the mind and some produce objectively existing images that happen to lack physical reality. If your argument was really about mechanics you would be discussing mechanics, not the philosophical fluff definitions present behind the keywords. It seems to me that what your argument is really about a personal conceptual block that you don't seem to be able to get over... which is why I apologized from the get go. It is rough to come face to face with something you just don't want to accept. But the fact of the matter is, the game is just fine the way it is, at least on this front. There is nothing objectively wrong with it on this front. Your personal, and very subjective, preferences just don't happen to align with the game's offically released fluff. Which is ok. Personally, though, I like it this way. If illusions were all affects of the mind, I would be bothered. It doesn't speak to the game's roots.
if a power creates a physical reality that resembles an object or creature it uses the keyword conjuration; if a power produces an effect that fools the mind or senses it uses the keyword illusion.
The problem is, your definitions are inconsistent.
Whether a power creates something solid that resembles an object or creature, or whether a power creates something insubstantial that resembles an object or creature, both are a physical reality. Both are made out of magic energies. Both 'fool the senses' into thinking its an actual object or creature. Both are exactly the same type of power.
Both are a conjuration.
if a power creates a physical reality that resembles an object or creature it uses the keyword conjuration; if a power produces an effect that fools the mind or senses it uses the keyword illusion.
The problem is, your definitions are inconsistent.
Whether a power creates something solid that resembles an object or creature, or whether a power creates something insubstantial that resembles an object or creature, both are a physical reality. Both are made out of magic energies. Both 'fool the senses' into thinking its an actual object or creature. Both are exactly the same type of power.
Both are a conjuration.
Wrong again Haldrik. I am not being inconsistent (and neither is the game). This isn't science, this is fantasy. In this case, a physical reality is defined by something that can be touched, physically sensed with one's hands and body, something that exists in three dimensional space not only insofar as energy exists in terms of scientific theory but rather insofar as one's ability to percieve the existence with the unaided faculties of touch via a character's biological self. Insofar as this medium is concerned, a physical reality would be something like a stone, or even a mist that contains an actual texture. An illusion has none of those. On the other hand, light, shadows, these are not considered physical realities in this medium (despite what we know about wavelengths and the nature of matter in more scientific mediums). A supernaturally created image that is nothing more than image, nothing more than light and shadow, is not considered to be a physical reality within this context. A creation that resembles a creature, that can be touched and physically interacted with via a character's biological faculty of touch, is a physical reality within this context. Your inability to come to terms with that is your own personal conceptual block. It is not the issue of either the game, or others. That issue is specific to you (and anyone who happens to share a similar mindset, though it would seem none can be found here, at least as of yet). If you were able to remove yourself from the fairly silly notion that magical creations must abide by the laws of contemporary scientific theory it would stop being your issue. An illusion is magic. It can manipulate the mind directly. It can also create a matter-less image that objectively exists insofar as one's sense of sight, but which lacks any real existence in three dimensional space insofar as one's sense of touch is concerned. An illusion is not anything beyond light, shadow, and false image. Illusions can bend light, bend shadow, create false sensory input, and manipulate the mind, though no one specific illusion must perform all of these manipulations (any one will do). Conjurations summon matter, and shape it into something that is a physical reality insofar as the sense of touch is concerned. A conjuration interacts with the world around it physically, and is composed of physically perceivable matter.
Dave, your wrong.
The game has rules. The presence or absence of magical energies means something.
Dave, your wrong.
The game has rules. The presence or absence of magical energies means something.
Haldrik, I am not wrong. Any reasonable person will admit as much. I have provided explicit quotes from officially released products that state exactly what I claim. You have provided absolutely zero except for your own personal desire that you be correct. The game does have rules, but those rules do not state what you are claiming they state. Every time you have tried to quote the text of the game I have pointed out that, despite the text you bold, there is also text (which you yourself have provided) that explicilty supports mirage/hologram like illusions as a form of 4e illusion spell. I have provided explicit quotes of spells in 4e that utilize that form of illusion. The rules state quite the opposit of what you claim. You have yet to provide even a single line of text that states that it is a rule that all illusion spells must directly affect the mind, and that a mirage/hologram like image (that lacks a physical reality to match the reality that the image suggests exists) is not a form of illusion. Nor could you, considering that I have already proven that such spells do exist in 4e, and do have the illusion keyword in 4e. I am sorry you have this conceptual block that refuses to allow you to accept the explicit word of the D&D brand products themselves... but that is just the way it is.
Illusion powers have always been breakable and broken in the D&D tradition. They always depend on DM whim, with challenge-ending results.
Illusions are the 'I win' 'Wish-lite' power.
If 4e uses illusions in earnest they must include clear ways for DMs to adjucate them.
Whether a power is subjective or objective is a fundamental game mechanic.
The 'illusion' effect type that subjectively affects the mind of specific creatures versus the 'conjuration' effect type that objectively exists in specific squares, is an obvious mechanical difference.
Designers need to make this distinction clearer to DMs to help them in mechanically adjudicate the bewildering variety of ways that characters and monsters can interact with these effect types.
Without rational consistent rules, illusion becomes game-breaking like it always has in previous editions.
Please point me to a spell that is not clearly adjudicated via the 4e power stat box style of presentation. Spells in 4e are very clearly adjudicated. No matter what their fluff, what they do is very clearly outlined via their keywords, hit line, miss line, and their effect line. If you are claiming that is not true, please provide an example of a spell where this is not true.
Whether a power is subjective or objective is not a fundamental game mechanic in 4e. The way 4e is designed, whether a power is objective or subjective is nothing more than fluff. A power does exactly what its hit, miss, and effect lines state. Nothing more, nothing less, and its "objective or subjective" existence is irrelevant to the final outcome. NPCs are immune or not immune to effects based on what keywords their stat block says they are immune to, not based on whether something objectively or subjectively exists.
I have provided examples of different kinds of illusion spells. Some say they produce an effect in a certain square. Some say they produce an effect on a specific creature. Some say they produce an effect that surrounds you (the caster). Sometimes the effect does have an obvious mechanical difference, and that difference can be found in various different illusion spells. It is not, however, true that the objective/subjective nature of an illusion always has a mechanical difference, and I can prove that via citation of various spells as well (if you wish). I can also cite more examples of any type of illusion (including more illusions that create objectively existing images that exist in specific spaces).
The spells are fine the way they are. Designers do not need to make this distinction clearer, because up to now I have seen no one confused by it except for you. What is more, considered how clear the effects of powers are due to their stat layout, I am willing to bet that even more DMs could care less about whether any given particular illusion is objective of subjective, because no matter how mutable the fluff may or may not be the power's mechanical effects are clearly outlined by any given power.
Illusions do have consistent rules. Any power that does not produce a physical effect, but rather tricks the mind or senses (be it via direct affect of a targets mind or the production of a mirage/hologram like effect), gains the illusion keyword. All powers, no matter what their keywords, do exactly what their hit, miss, and effect lines say. There is nothing in 4e that is nearly as "game-breaking" as you claim. What is more, there is very little about this conversation that has nearly as much to do with mechanics as what you claim. The truth is, this conversation is fairly peripheral to the game's mechanics. It is far more philosophical than anything else.
Dave: 'You have provided absolutely zero.'
I cant help but feel you are being disingenuous and insulting.
I have provided more explicit quotes than you have. I have especially quoted the official definitions of illusion and conjuration. And explained what 'deceive the mind or the senses' actually means. ALL powers that use the illusion and conjuration keywords MUST conform to their official definitions - unless a specific power specifically states otherwise.
You simply choose to ignore the official definitions, futilely interpreting the powers in nonsensical ways, so that you can make up your own personal versions of what the powers can do.
For example, your claims here are untenable, and any reasonable person notices that:
False claim: 'An illusion either manipulates the mind directly, or manipulates light and shadow to deceive and confuse the senses.'
You made up your own definition and contradict what the official definition of what the illusion keyword actually says. You say, illusion manipulates radiant energy ('light'). But that would be a lie.
False claim: 'The difference between a conjuration and an illusion is that a conjuration has a physical reality while an illusion doesn't.'
Again, you made up your own definition and contradict what the official definition of conjuration actually says. You say, what defines a 'conjuration' is 'physical reality'. But that would be a lie. What officially defines the conjuration keyword is it is made out of 'magical energies'.
I have provided more explicit quotes than you have. I have especially quoted the official definitions of illusion and conjuration. And explained what 'deceive the mind or the senses' actually means. ALL powers that use the illusion and conjuration keywords MUST conform to their official definitions - unless a specific power specifically states otherwise.
No Haldrik, you have not. What you have regularly provided is quotes in which you bold one particular part of a sentence that you think supports your claims. What you have regularly done is ignored the fact that just before or after your bolded portion of the sentence there is the word or followed by another portion of a sentence that directly contradicts your claims (as your claims are not that one particular type of effect is an illusion, but rather that only that type of effect is an illusion). Considering that my claim is that illusions cover a range of possible effects, all of which deceive the mind or the senses, what you have regularly done is ignored the fact that either the quote you provided, or the entirety of the quote (which I provided after you provided a portion of it) actually supports my statement, not yours. You have not explained what 'deceives the mind or the senses' "actually means." What you have done is ignored the fact that the sentence explicitly states that illusions deceive the mind or the senses, and the intentionally misread the statement by providing explanation that is not backed by the text your are trying to explain but rather by your personal desired interpretation. All powers that use the illusion and conjuration keywords MUST conform to their official definitions--unless the specific power specifically states otherwise--but the meanings of the official definitions do not match your explanations of them. When the keyword's description states that "An illusion power deceives the mind or the senses," the illusion keyword power means exactly that. It does not mean, "An illusion power deceives the senses by directly deceiving the mind, directly affecting the mind, in all cases. A power that deceives the senses by producing an objective image that suggests it has a physical reality, despite the fact that it does not, is not an illusion." I am sorry that it offends you that I am capable of understanding basic grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. I am sorry that you want the sentence to mean something it doesn't. But I am not being disingenuous when I tell you that you have provided exactly zero quotes that support your claim. You have not provided such quotes.
You simply choose to ignore the official definitions, futilely interpreting the powers in nonsensical ways, so that you can make up your own personal versions of what the powers can do.
No Haldrik, I am sorry, but that would be you. When you take the sentence "An illusion power deceives the mind or the senses," and try to claim that it means, "An illusion power deceives the senses by directly deceiving the mind, directly affecting the mind, in all cases. A power that deceives the senses by producing an objective image that suggests it has a physical reality, despite the fact that it does not, is not an illusion," that is exactly what you are doing. When a sentence says "this power does this or that," both this or that can be true of such a power. When the illusion keyword says that any (supernatural) power that deceives the mind or the senses is an illusion, that is exactly what it means. Thus, a (supernatural) power that deceives the senses without deceiving the mind is still an illusion power. A power that deceives the senses into believing that a physical reality exists, via the use of a mirage like effect, despite the fact that the physical reality in question does not, is an illusion. The power is an illusion because it matches the definition, "An illusion power deceives the mind or the senses."
It doesn't matter how many times you say it is a false claim, it isn't. It doesn't matter how much you want your interpretation to be true, it isn't. It doesn't matter that you state that my claims here are untenable, the objectively existing text of the books indicate otherwise. When the books state that an illusion deceives the mind or the senses, it is a true claim that a power that manipulates the mind directly and a power that manipulates light and shadow to deceive a viewer's senses (into believing something is there when that something actually is not) are both illusions. When the conjuration keyword states that you produce matter that appears in the shape of a creature (that is a paraphrased definition as I don't have the book in front of me right now, and the compendium does not have the text in question in it. However, I have provided the exact quote earlier in this thread), and the illusion keyword states that it produces an effect that deceives the mind or the senses, it is a true claim that a conjuration has a physical reality that matches the sensory input of an organism sensing it and an illusion does not. The only person making up definitions here is you. I am using the definitions from the book. You are using definitions that don't exist in any book except for "Haldrik's Book Of Intentional Misinterpretations."
There is one thing I have learned from my many arguments with Haldrik - everyone loses, because you are wasting your time with someone who will never admit that he is wrong, no matter how much evidence and facts you present to prove that he's wrong.
I am starting to get that. I am also starting to understand why many of your posts hold so much resentment towards Haldrik. This is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to argue with someone to prove that "An illusion is a power that deceives the mind or the senses" when that is exactly what the book says. I shouldn't have to argue with someone to prove that the wizards school of illusion specializes in the production of apparitions, false images, or in other words mirage like effects that are objectively visible, when the text of the books states as much explicitly. Haldrik is making up his own definitions here, and then accusing people who are using the rules as written definitions straight from the texts of doing exactly what he is actually doing. I think I am done here. There is a point of talking to someone when they will accept common reality, and utilize language honestly. When someone's blind faith reaches a point where they will argue that a sentence doesn't mean what it says it means, but actually means something that has absolutely zero grounding in the text, the point of having a conversation is probably over. When someone calls you disingenuous because you point out that the definition "An illusion power deceives the senses by directly deceiving the mind, directly affecting the mind, in all cases. A power that deceives the senses by producing an objective image that suggests it has a physical reality, despite the fact that it does not, is not an illusion" does not equate to "An illusion power deceives the mind or the senses," and that the latter definition, even if quoted, does not support the former definition, the point of having a conversation is probably over. I am starting to agree with your estimations CelticMutt.
'The wizards school of illusion specializes in the production of
• apparitions [in the minds of the creatures = phantasms],
• false images [in the minds of the creatures = figments]'
'objectively visible, when the text of the books states as much'
A creature who 'thinks' it sees an object in a specific square, isnt the same thing as there actually being an object in that square. The creature is simply wrong. The creatures 'senses' are false. The object has no objective existence whatsoever. The object exists subjectively in the mind of the creature only.
If twenty creatures - or twenty thousand creatures - 'think' they see an object in a specific square, that object still isnt there. The square really remains empty. The twenty creatures are simply wrong. Even tho they each have the same hallucination, their 'senses' are false. The object has no objective existence whatsoever. The object exists subjectively in the minds of these twenty creatures.
By contrast. If the object really does objectively exist in that square - even if this object is only insubstantial - if this object is made out of 'magical energies' that resemble the object, it is BY DEFINITION a 'conjuration'.
OK, when there was the rumor of the full Class of the Illusionist, the hint of having Illusions have substantial makeup using the Shadow stuff. Then Dragon had the Illusion build article/preview and the Illusionist disappeared. Now there is a Mage that has Illusion spells.
What your talking about, I don't know. I don't talk circles. Your putting a lot of work into this, that much is sure, but really, the powers that are in all three versions of the illusion specialty/dabbler of the Wizard isn't touching even the tip of what the full fledged Illusionist could have been.
Are you saying the power(s) in question should be more complicated? That it should be different? That the Illusion spells should have specific effects instead? Like Having Mage Hand only able to manipulate apples?
Look at it through the lens of Star Trek. It is a Hologram, looks real but distorts (and the 2nd level spell disappears) when touched/poked through. Think of the space chess game on the Millinium Falcon on Star Wars.
Dave:
'The wizards school of illusion specializes in the production of
• apparitions [in the minds of the creatures = phantasms],
• false images [in the minds of the creatures = figments]'
Again Haldrik, that is not the definition of those words based on the English language. Apparitions, according to the English language, do not by definition only exist in the minds of creatures. The term false image, in the English language, does not necessitate the conclusion that it exists only in the minds of creatures. That is your conceptual block coloring your perception. You are, once again, making up definitions. You are adding context that is not textually supported via the descriptions actually given in the text of the published works.
'objectively visible, when the text of the books states as much'
A creature who 'thinks' it sees an object in a specific square, isnt the same thing as there actually being an object in that square. The creature is simply wrong. The creatures 'senses' are false. The object has no objective existence whatsoever. The object exists subjectively in the mind of the creature only.
If twenty creatures - or twenty thousand creatures - 'think' they see an object in a specific square, that object still isnt there. The square really remains empty. The twenty creatures are simply wrong. Even tho they each have the same hallucination, their 'senses' are false. The object has no objective existence whatsoever. The object exists subjectively in the minds of these twenty creatures.
Again Haldrik, this is another example of you adding in explanation that is not textually supported, anywhere, in the published text of the products themselves. There is nothing, anywhere, that says that the images that all of the illusion powers say they produce exist only in the minds of those affected. Indeed, the language for a number of powers describes the images as objectively existing. It simply happens to be the case that while the image really exists, the thing that the image depicts does not.
By contrast. If the object really does objectively exist in that square - even if this object is only insubstantial - if this object is made out of 'magical energies' that resemble the object, it is BY DEFINITION a 'conjuration'.
The object doesn't really exist. The image, however, objectively does. That is what many of the illusions do. They produce images that objectively exist, but the objects or creatures that the images depict do not; by this means the illusion deceives the senses. This is why the term "hologram" is a very good descriptor for a number of illusion powers. Note that the images are not merely insubstantial. In D&D, the term insubstantial has a mechanical meaning. An insubstantial creature or item physically exists. It simply happens to be insubstantial, and so halves all damage it takes. Creatures in the form of mist are a good example of insubstantial creatures. An illusion exists only as an image. The image objectively exists. But in terms of material matter, it has no physical reality. The image is a magical hologram.
Your equation of the lack of physical reality with a things existence only in the mind of a perceiving creature is not an equation supported by the text of the game.
'magical energies' made to 'resemble' an 'object' = the definition of a 'conjuration'
Star Wars hologram chess = conjuration
Star Trek holodeck = conjuration
The object doesn't really exist. The image, however, objectively does. That is what many of the illusions do.
Thats why your wrong.
The magical energies really do exist.
These magical energies only resemble an object. There is no real object. Only the semblance of one. The image of one. The appearance of one. There is only a resemblance of an object.
Therefore, it is a conjuration.
An image made out of magical energies that resemble an object is BY DEFINITION a conjuration.
I find it kind of comical that everyone can see this but you...
PH3, 216, Conjuration: 'A conjuration power creates a conjuration, which is a thing of magical energy that resembles a creature or an object. Even if a conjuration looks like a creature or displays some degree of sentinence, it is not considered a creature.
If an image is made out of 'magical energy that resembles an object', then it is by definition, a 'conjuration'.
The image can be insubstantial or solid - if it is made out of magical energy, then it is a conjuration.
The Holograms in star trek is images made into a three demensional space by mirrors. Only on the Holo Deck did the enviorment have any substance, and still you would see the holograms of the people getting moved through. Nothing is conjured at all, it is all (forgive the pun) an illusion.
The Chess game images could be seen through, as well as the hologram of the princess (Help me, Obi Wan Konobi, you are my only hope), nothing is conjured.
Not sure what your seeing.
And what is doing that reconfiguring and reassembling?
'Magical energy'
Sorry, borrowing from Star Wars again.... forgive.
Your saying that the Magical Energy is "Conjured." Right?
That is probably the best choice of words.
The mage conjures the magic energy and constructs this magic energy in a way to resemble an image.
This image that is made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
So, as an example, an Invisiblity power that targets a creature or object to render it invisible actually targets all observers of that creature or object? Is that the gist of how all Invisiblity works?
That is how I understand the invisibility spell. The spell automatically affects the sense of vision of any creature who sees the target. That is why, any creature who is immune to illusion can see the target plain as day. The target isnt actually transparent. The creatures are simply 'blind'.
So, as an example, an Invisiblity power that targets a creature or object to render it invisible actually targets all observers of that creature or object? Is that the gist of how all Invisiblity works?
That is how I understand the invisibility spell. The spell automatically affects the sense of vision of any creature who sees the target. That is why, any creature who is immune to illusion can see the target plain as day. The target isnt actually transparent. The creatures are simply 'blind'.
Then I must be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "target" as it applies to power descriptions in 4e.
In order to prevent the making up of definitions, here is the official definition of the effect-type keyword: conjuration.
PH3, 216, Conjuration: 'A conjuration power creates a conjuration, which is a thing of magical energy that resembles a creature or an object. Even if a conjuration looks like a creature or displays some degree of sentinence, it is not considered a creature.
If an image is made out of 'magical energy that resembles an object', then it is by definition, a 'conjuration'.
The image can be insubstantial or solid - if it is made out of magical energy, then it is a conjuration.
And again, in that case the resemblance is not illusory (or it would be an illusion). Its physical shape and texture looks like a creature or object. A conjuration is more than an image. An illusion is just an image. That is the difference between them. One fools the senses. One creates an actual shape. Both, however, can objectively exist (though only one will exist as something tangible). And as I pointed out, there are illusion spells that explicitly state that they produce their effect by manipulating shadows (and thus light), not affecting the mind. I am not sure why you can not grasp that.
A creature or object, insubstantial or solid, created by magic is a conjuration. An image created by magic, which lacks substance whatsoever, is an illusion. However, there is not a single line of text anywhere in the game that supports your notion that an illusion exists only in the mind. The image exist in objective reality (unless the power says otherwise). The image just happens to be "fake." There is nothing there but an image.
Obviously, a Wall of Fog is conjuration that is insubstantial because the magical energy takes the form of vapor. But a conjuration can also comprise fire energy, which is insubstantial. A conjuration can also comprise radiant energy, which is insubstantial. Pure image without any substance whatsoever.
Obviously, a Wall of Fog is conjuration that is insubstantial because the magical energy takes the form of vapor. But a conjuration can also comprise fire energy, which is insubstantial. A conjuration can also comprise radiant energy, which is insubstantial. Pure image without any substance whatsoever.
Fog has substance, you can swish your arm though it and watch the vapor swirl. Fire has substance, its heat will burn if you touch it. An image has no substance, stick your arm through it and both the image and your arm remain uneffected.
Heh, you left out the part where the hand will pass thru a conjuration made out of radiant energy, which is completely insubstantial.
• The Cleric utility, Holy Lantern, is conjuration made out of 'light' that shines 'like a lantern'. Mechanically it 'sheds light 5 squares'. Certainly, the conjured 'light' itself is strictly insubstantial.
• The Invoker utility, Wall Of Light, is a conjuration that is made out of 'divine energy'. Presumably it is made out of radiant energy, whence its name 'light', but deals no radiant damage thus lacks the 'radiant' keyword. In any case, this conjuration is insubstantial and creatures can pass thru it.
• A conjuration can be made entirely out of 'thunder' energy, being nothing except the vibrations of sound (Wall of Sound).
• A conjuration can be made entirely out of lightning energy (Static Mote, Malicious Lightning).
• By the way, there are conjurations made out of 'pure psychic energy' (Psychic Anomaly).
• There is even a conjuration made out of 'nothingness', albeit mechanically it deals force damage (Void Shard). Similarly, there is a conjuration made out of a gravitational 'singularity' - a blackhole described as a 'dark vortex' that immobilizes creatures within its pull (Ravenous Singularity). You can even conjure a 'hole in reality' that teleports creatures (Hundred Doors).
• Because unspecified conjurations cant attack or be attacked, or prevent other creatures from occupying their square, they may be insubstantial. At least, it is mechanically possible to treat them as insubstantial by default. For example, Symbol of Hope conjures a glowing holy symbol, presumably floating in mid air and made out of luminous energy.
• Even tho certain conjurations like, Mage Hand and Past-Life Servant, can pick up objects, they themselves may be insubstantial - like a 'spectral' ghost - because they can neither attack nor be attacked, nor prevent creatures from occupying their space.
Whether a conjuration is solid or insubstantial, deals damage or not, depends on the power itself and its purpose. The point is, a 'conjuration' can be any image made out of any conceivable 'magical energy'. It can be made out of radiant energy, psychic energy, psionic energy, divine energy, elemental energies, whatever. It can even be made out of 'nothingness'. A conjuration can be an image and can be strictly insubstantial.
• The Cleric utility, Holy Lantern, is conjuration made out of 'light' that shines 'like a lantern'. Mechanically it 'sheds light 5 squares'. Certainly, the conjuration of the 'light' itself is strictly insubstantial.
• The Invoker utility, Wall Of Light, is a conjuration that is made out of 'divine energy'. Presumably it is made out of radiant energy, whence its name 'light', but deals no radiant damage thus lacks the 'radiant' keyword. In any case, this conjuration is insubstantial and creatures can pass thru it.
• A conjuration can be made entirely out of lightning energy (Static Mote, Malicious Lightning).
• By the way, there are conjurations made out out of 'pure psychic energy' (Psychic Anomaly).
• There is even a conjuration made out of 'nothingness', albeit mechanically it deals force damage (Void Shard). Similarly, there is a conjuration made out of a gravitational 'singularity' - a blackhole described as a 'dark vortex' that immobilizes creatures within its pull (Ravenous Singularity). You can even conjure a 'hole in reality' that teleports creatures (Hundred Doors).
The point that you miss is that all those conjuration still possess SUBSTANCE, even if very limited, in so far as they produce tangible effect and thus interact with the outside world. Holy Lantern is a conjuration because it creates actual light, if it was an illusion than while it would still appear as sphere of glowing luminance it would cast no actual light and thus if placed in a dark room the room would remain dark.
Umm ... light is strictly insubstantial. Has no substance. (Has no mass.)
You seem to have missed the point, a conjuration can be made out of magical energy in the form of nothingness. Nothingness. Seriously, how do you argue substance after that?
So, as an example, an Invisiblity power that targets a creature or object to render it invisible actually targets all observers of that creature or object? Is that the gist of how all Invisiblity works?
That is how I understand the invisibility spell. The spell automatically affects the sense of vision of any creature who sees the target. That is why, any creature who is immune to illusion can see the target plain as day. The target isnt actually transparent. The creatures are simply 'blind'.
So a spell like this one:
Invisibility
A creature you choose vanishes from sight.
Daily 
Arcane, Illusion
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: You or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn. If the target attacks, the effect ends.
Sustain Standard: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect.
does not affect the stated target, but rather affects the minds of all observers (in any quantity) of that target for the duration? Even without line of sight or line of effect? At any range?
And it's only a sixth level spell?
((spell text copied and pasted from the Compendium))
• Subjective hallucination = Illusion
• Objective image = Conjuration
Heh, I dare say, you are the one with the conceptual block.
I know you really want for your roguish characters to produce visual effects. That makes you uncomfortable with the idea that illusion effects are strictly in the mind. But there is a place for this kind of subjective mechanical effect. Meanwhile, so these visual effects that you produce use the keyword 'conjuration', so what? Its exactly the same thing as what you have in mind. As long as the rules are clear, which keyword you use really isnt a big deal.
Moreover, conjurations can be made out pure magical energy: pure psionic energy, pure divine energy, pure arcane energy, and so on. These conjurations can take on the properties of radiant energy, thunder energy, whatever one wants, but the pure magical energy doesnt have to behave like natural light or natural shadow if one doesnt want. One can conjure an image to look like anything one can imagine.
Dave, it isnt a conceptual block. Its a clear definition that works 100% of the time.
• Subjective hallucination = Illusion
• Objective image = Conjuration
You know what else works 100% of the time? The definition the book actually gives us. You know:
• Tricks the mind or senses = illusion
• Uses magical energy to create something with the form of a creature or object = conjuration.
But I guess using the definitions that are actually present in the book is a little too hard for you.
Here, your understanding of conjuration is close enough, since form and image are synonyms. You can conjure an image.
But Illusion effects affect the mind and the senses. That is the whole point of a keyword for illusion in the first place. They are subjective events in the mind of the creatures. This is the phantasm and figment of previous editions.
If you just want to conjure an image of an object or a creature, then you just do a normal conjuration.
Dave, you are the only one who repeatedly misquotes the rules, to make up your own definitions. I have cited your misquotes on several occasions.
Here, your understanding of conjuration is close enough, since form and image are synonyms. You can conjure an image.
But Illusion effects affect the mind and the senses. That is the whole point of a keyword for illusion in the first place. They are subjective events in the mind of the creatures. This is the phantasm and figment of previous editions.
If you just want to conjure an image of an object or a creature, then you just do a normal conjuration.
Um, no Haldrik. I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but you are describing your own habits. Hell, just look at this very post! The text does not say that illusions affect the mind and the senses. The text says that illusions deceive the mind or the senses. Which, in the English language, means that a spell needs only affect one of those to count as an illusion. It also doesn't mean that all the extra stipulations you are trying to tack on exist. Nice try though!
'Mind' and 'senses' refer to the classic D&D tradition.
Affects the 'mind' = phantasm
Affects the 'senses' = figment (defined as 'a false sensation')
Dave, apparently in the fantasy land that you live in, you think its ok to insult people to distract people from the fact you are wrong?
'Mind' and 'senses' refer to the classic D&D tradition.
Affects the 'mind' = phantasm
Affects the 'senses' = figment (defined as 'a false sensation')
Funny how no one agrees with you... I wonder why that is. Maybe it is because there is absolutely nothing in the text to support that statement?
You know the simplest reason you are proven wrong? Illusions have a separate keyword from Conjurations.
That is not going to change.
You simply make up your own definitions, and refuse to pay attention to what the rules actually say, even when their wordings, their intention, and their historical tradition are completely clear.
• An image made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
• An illusion is 'unreal'. It has no real existence. It is a false sensation.
Dave, funny how you have become unable to use the actual rules to back up your claims.
You simply make up your own definitions, and refuse to pay attention to what the rules actually say, even when their wordings, their intention, and their historical tradition are completely clear.
• An image made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
• An illusion is 'unreal'. It has no real existence. It is a false sensation.
So how many minds can a wizard affect with a 6th level effect? 50,000? more?
It makes more sense to me that the spell affects the targetted creature, rather than the audience.
Sorry, Jonathon, I didnt mean to ignore your point.
Suppose the target is actually truly transparent, so light is passing thru it. Then the power that could do this would be actually changing the targets body and possessions in a way that made it transparent. In other words, it would get the polymorph keyword. Sort of like Shapechange into an Air Elemental.
The illusion keyword is different. It doesnt actually change the target itself, but instead changes the way other creatures perceive the target. Any creature who views the target becomes blind to the target. The target simply vanishes from their sense of sight.
Mechanically, the Invisibilty power is fine as-is. The word 'invisible' is a technical term that has several specific mechanics that apply, including the 'total concealment' penalty that it inflicts on enemies.
It is weird that a power on a target indirectly mechanically affects other creatures (unless the creatures are immune, of course). But some powers have targeting that works like that, for example, some fear effects make other creatures afraid of the target.
Dave, funny how you have become unable to use the actual rules to back up your claims.
Actually, I have done exactly that. I have even provided explicit quotes from the text that actually support what I say... as opposed to you, who has provided quotes that support exactly the opposite, and bolded only those parts you wish to pay attention to.
You simply make up your own definitions, and refuse to pay attention to what the rules actually say, even when their wordings, their intention, and their historical tradition are completely clear.
• An image made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
• An illusion is 'unreal'. It has no real existence. It is a false sensation.
Actually, it is you who just created your own definitions, and it is you who refuse to pay attention to what the rules actually say. The two definitions you just gave are not the definitions given by the game's text.
Funny how everyone seems to notice that except for you...
Dave, funny how you have become unable to use the actual rules to back up your claims.
Actually, I have done exactly that. I have even provided explicit quotes from the text that actually support what I say... as opposed to you, who has provided quotes that support exactly the opposite, and bolded only those parts you wish to pay attention to.
You simply make up your own definitions, and refuse to pay attention to what the rules actually say, even when their wordings, their intention, and their historical tradition are completely clear.
• An image made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
• An illusion is 'unreal'. It has no real existence. It is a false sensation.
Actually, it is you who just created your own definitions, and it is you who refuses to pay attention to what the rules actually say. The two definitions you just gave are not the definitions given by the game's text.
Funny how everyone seems to notice that except for you...
The 'summoning' keyword isnt made out of magical energy. Summoning powers *actually* 'bring creatures magically from elsewhere, often from other planes.'
Why are you bringing summoning into this?
So if I see something in the sky, it's either really up there in the sky, a construct of energy that's up there in the sky, or all in my head? Something can't be causing me to see a real image that is not where it appears to be?
I dont follow the gist of your question.
If you see a so-called 'real image', but it isnt really there, then it isnt a real image.
So if I see something in the sky, it's either really up there in the sky, a construct of energy that's up there in the sky, or all in my head? Something can't be causing me to see a real image that is not where it appears to be?
I dont follow the gist of your question.
If you see a so-called 'real image', but it isnt really there, then it isnt a real image.
It is if I can photograph it.
Damn you xkcd for reminding me of the one sad reason that I exist in this world! I suppose that means I must fullfill my duty now. *sigh* I always hate getting involved in this sort of stuff. x_x
Dave, funny how you have become unable to use the actual rules to back up your claims.
Haldrik I would like to introduce you to page 55 of PHB1.
Illusion:
Powers that deceive the senses or the mind.
I will now direct you to a post by Cyber-Dave...
The text does not say that illusions affect the mind and the senses. The text says that illusions deceive the mind or the senses. Which, in the English language, means that a spell needs only affect one of those to count as an illusion. It also doesn't mean that all the extra stipulations you are trying to tack on exist. Nice try though!
...which accuratly states the rule from PHB1 that I just posted.
Every argument you make turns out to be untenable.
You were wrong about conjuration. Rather it can be insubstantial.
You are also wrong about illusion.
The text does not say that illusions affect the mind and the senses. The text says that illusions deceive the mind or the senses. Which, in the English language, means that a spell needs only affect one of those to count as an illusion. It also doesn't mean that all the extra stipulations you are trying to tack on exist. Nice try though!
So, according to your failed argument, you say, the word 'or' in the definition of illusion means your interpretation is correct.
According to your argument, an illusion deceives either the mind - in which case the illusion is subjective - 'or' it deceives the senses - in which case an objectively existing image tricks the senses into thinking it really is what it pretends to be.
Unfortunately, your interpretation is dead wrong. Not only *can* both 'mind' and 'senses' refer to subjective events, in fact, both do.
The D&D 4e definition of illusion quotes the 3e definition verbatim.
• Illusion (3e SRD): 'Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.'
• Illusion (4e PH1): Illusion 'powers deceive the senses or the mind.'
The 4e keyword clearly cites the D&D tradition.
So, in 3e, what exactly does the phrase 'deceive the senses or minds' mean? Well, this is how the text elaborates it. 'They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, or remember things that never happened.' The explanation goes on to describe the 'figment', which is a 'false sensation' of something that isnt there, and 'phantasm' which is 'totally in the minds', and so on. Strictly subjective sensations and experiences.
In the past, this deception of senses or minds referred to subjective events. It still remains true in the present. The 4e phrase, 'deceives the mind or the senses', refers to strictly subjective phenomena. A distortion of the sensations of the creatures or else an outright invasion of the minds of the creatures.
Dave, you are wrong.
Illusions are not, were not, and will never be Conjurations according to WotC's rules, or common sense.
Oh, CelticMutt, you are almost always wrong. The fact you agree with Dave, isnt a good sign for Daves side of the debate.
Such a cogent refutation of his argument...NOT!
Dave, lets go thru again why you are wrong.
Every argument you make turns out to be untenable.
Tell that to those who called Dave an alarmist for saying the cards in GW would be collectible. It turns out that they are. Hyperbole does not help your arguement.
You are also wrong about illusion.The text does not say that illusions affect the mind and the senses. The text says that illusions deceive the mind or the senses. Which, in the English language, means that a spell needs only affect one of those to count as an illusion. It also doesn't mean that all the extra stipulations you are trying to tack on exist. Nice try though!
So, according to your failed argument, you say, the word 'or' in the definition of illusion means your interpretation is correct.
According to your argument, an illusion deceives either the mind - in which case the illusion is subjective - 'or' it deceives the senses - in which case an objectively existing image tricks the senses into thinking it really is what it pretends to be.
Unfortunately, your interpretation is dead wrong. Not only *can* both 'mind' and 'senses' refer to subjective events, in fact, both do.
Actually, it's not intrinsically subjective. The image is objective if people experience it the same way. Invisibility is objective because everyone looking at an invisible object sees nothing. An illusory monster that has the same sensory appearance to everyone who looks at it is also objective.
The D&D 4e definition of illusion quotes the 3e definition verbatim.
• Illusion (3e SRD): 'Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.'
• Illusion (4e PH3): 'An Illusion power deceives the mind or the senses'.
This is a logical fallacy as 3e and 4e are separate editions with their own separate rulesets. But lets set that aside for a moment and consider your point:
The 4e keyword clearly cites the D&D tradition.
So, in 3e, what exactly does the phrase 'deceive the senses or minds' mean? Well, this is how the text elaborates it. 'They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, or remember things that never happened.' The explanation goes on to describe the 'figment', which is a 'false sensation' of something that isnt there, and 'phantasm' which is 'totally in the minds', and so on. Strictly subjective sensations and experiences.
This isn't correct. Look at the level 1 3e spell Disguise Self. The disguise is objective, decided upon by the caster, with everyone who views the disguised character seeing the same false appearance. Silent Image, Blur, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Minor Image, Major Image, Hallucinatory Terrain, Illusory Wall, etc. are likewise objective,
In the past, this deception of senses or minds referred to subjective events. It still remains true in the present. The 4e phrase, 'deceives the mind or the senses', refers to strictly subjective phenomena. A distortion of the sensations of the creatures or else an outright invasion of the minds of the creatures.
You are incorrect, as my partial list of objective illusions from 3e will attest.
No, seriously. CelticMutt didnt contribute a single argument to the debate in this entire thread.
But yeah, I really do appreciate when people are being constructive, and I try to reciprocate.
To disagree passionately is a good thing. Such debates refine the truth. But to be divisive is a bad thing.
Actually, it's not intrinsically subjective. The image is objective if people experience it the same way.
Mecha, I already mentioned that point earlier.
Ultimately this debate is about *where* the illusion produces the image. Is it a real image in an empty square? So, creatures see something that really is truly there?
Or, the image is produced by impressing false sensations on the creatures themselves.
So, when we say 'objective', we mean actually exists in the physical world, and when we say 'subjective', we mean it only exists as sensations.
In the case of 'false sensations', every creature that looks at the empty square indeed experiences the same image. The power induces the same 'virtual reality' program on all of them. So even tho there is no image there, they can all agree on what their senses tell them.
This multiple induction of the same false sensations, applies to powers like Invisibility and so on.
Actually, it's not intrinsically subjective. The image is objective if people experience it the same way.
Mecha, I already mentioned that point earlier.
Ultimately this debate is about *where* the illusion produces the image. Is it a real image in an empty square? So, creatures see something that really is truly there?
Or, the image is produced by impressing false sensations on the creatures themselves.
So, when we say 'objective', we mean actually exists in the physical world, and when we say 'subjective', we mean it only exists as sensations.
In the case of 'false sensations', every creature that looks at the empty square indeed experiences the same image. The power induces the same 'virtual reality' program on all of them. So even tho there is no image there, they can all agree on what their senses tell them.
This multiple induction of the same false sensations, applies to powers like Invisibility and so on.
Then the arguement has truly degenrated to a point where no one can be right or wrong, because magic is not real. An illusion could very well be objective (by your description of the term) in that deceptive magical energy is laid over the illusioned thing/area and has the same effect on everyone's senses. This would make illusion both objective and subjective by your definitions, and no one can prove if that is correct or not. My evidence for this being the case is detect magic (from 3e), and the ability to detect the presence of illusory magic on a creature when the effect (according to your terms) is in the minds.senses of the viewers.
Then the arguement has truly degenrated to a point where no one can be right or wrong, because magic is not real.
Actually, Jonathons question would resolve the issue. If you take a photograph of the empty square, what does it look like (after the illusion is no longer in effect)? Empty or with the illusion?
My evidence for this being the case is detect magic (from 3e), and the ability to detect the presence of illusory magic on a creature when the effect (according to your terms) is in the minds.senses of the viewers.
3e Detect Magic. Huh, interesting angle. Il check that out and get back to you on that.
Then the arguement has truly degenrated to a point where no one can be right or wrong, because magic is not real.
Actually, Jonathons question would resolve the issue. If you take a photograph of the empty square, what does it look like (after the illusion is no longer in effect)? Empty or with the illusion?My evidence for this being the case is detect magic (from 3e), and the ability to detect the presence of illusory magic on a creature when the effect (according to your terms) is in the minds.senses of the viewers.
3e Detect Magic. Huh, interesting angle. Il check that out and get back to you on that.
How about this one? www.insidesocal.com/friendlyfire/rainbow...
Jonathon,
Rainbow: refracting light?
As far as a magical power goes ...
• Any 'radiant energy' power can do it, by outright controlling the light.
• Telekinesis can do it, by bending the light.
• An 'elemental' 'water' or 'air' effect could do it, by actually making the air denser to work like lens.
And so on.
There is a power called Intellect Prism that seems to do something similar. Its a conjuration that seems to make a prism out of light that the Psion can use as a point of origin for both remote presence and powers.
Then the arguement has truly degenrated to a point where no one can be right or wrong, because magic is not real.
Actually, Jonathons question would resolve the issue. If you take a photograph of the empty square, what does it look like (after the illusion is no longer in effect)? Empty or with the illusion?
Why would that resolve anything? You have to ask yourself if cameras are immune to illusions, the evaluate it that way.
Situation 1: Cameras are immune to illusions.
If the camera is immune to illusions, it is no different that a human who disbelieves the illusion and thus doesn't see it. This doesn't indicate whether the effect is the result of a cloak of deceptive magical energy failing to fool the senses or the failure of direct maniuplation of the senses.
Situation 2: Cameras are not immune to illusions.
If a camera is not immune to illusions, then the camera will record the illusion just as human memory would. This would occur regardless of whether the camera's senses were being fooled directly or being fooled by a layer of deceptive magical energy laid over the item/area photographed.
So even if you were to find an actual magical illusion, find out if cameras are/aren't immune to illusory effects, and then take a picture of the magical illusion we would be no closer to actually resolving the question.
Why would that [camera] resolve anything? You have to ask yourself if cameras are immune to illusions, then evaluate it that way.
Well, I assume cameras are immune to illusion. They have no mind, and th ... well, arguably they have a sense, 'sight'. Ack. I guess it wouldnt resolve anything.
Situation 1: Cameras are immune to illusions.
- If the camera is immune to illusions, it is no different that a human who disbelieves the illusion and thus doesn't see it.
- This doesn't indicate whether the effect is the result of a cloak of deceptive magical energy failing to fool the senses or the failure of direct maniuplation of the senses.
Yeah, but if you see the image, but the camera doesnt. It means there is no 'objectively existing' image. So it must be a manipulation of the senses. Right?
Why would that [camera] resolve anything? You have to ask yourself if cameras are immune to illusions, then evaluate it that way.
Well, I assume cameras are immune to illusion. They have no mind, and th ... well, arguably they have a sense, 'sight'. Ack. I guess it wouldnt resolve anything.Situation 1: Cameras are immune to illusions.
- If the camera is immune to illusions, it is no different that a human who disbelieves the illusion and thus doesn't see it.
- This doesn't indicate whether the effect is the result of a cloak of deceptive magical energy failing to fool the senses or the failure of direct maniuplation of the senses.
Yeah, but if you see the image, but the camera doesnt. It means there is no 'objectively existing' image. So it must be a manipulation of the senses. No?
No, it does not answer whether the effect is objective/subjective by your standard. Let me explain.
Assuming, as you have, that cameras are immune to illusions; and that you see an image while and the camera does not: both of the following situations remain possible explanations for the effect.
1) There could be an invisible (to the naked eye, and hence to cameras) layer of deceptive magical energy on the object/area being illusioned that affects others senses. By your past definition, this makes the effect objective.
2) The illusion could be direct manipulation of your senses, making it subjective by your standard.
It doesnt specifically mention anything about illusion.
Suppose you 'target' an empty square as the locus for an illusion. By the 3e rules, that square would still emanate a magical aura. Thats why anyone who looked at it would get the false sensations.
Even tho there is no real image there, I would say there is real magical energy there. Basically its the transmitter of the false sensations. (This would be true for the 'target' of an Invisibility spell too.)
So 3e Detect Magic doesnt help either way.
On the other hand, the 3e False Vision spell seems to confirm there is no 'objectively existing' image.
Here is the spell description.
False Vision
Illusion (Glamer)
Any divination (scrying) spell used to view anything within the area of this spell, instead receives a false image (as the Major Image spell), as defined by you at the time of casting.
As long as the duration lasts, you can concentrate to change the image as desired. While you aren’t concentrating, the image remains static.
First. In my reading, only the one who is trying to scry the location longdistance sees this false image. The people who are actually at the location dont actually see the false image and just go about their business as normal. This would prove there is no objectively existing image, because if there was, the people actually there would see it too.
Second, regarding changing the false image. I assume the word 'static' here doesnt mean frozen. For example, if the spell set the false image to be a man sitting by the fireplace sipping on whiskey, the scryer would see this figure breathing, shuffling around, lifting and setting down the glass, and so on. Thus, 'concentrate to change the image' means more-or-less concentrate to change whatever channel on TV you want any potential scryers to see.
In short, there is no objectively existing image, but any scryer gets a 'false sensation' of one.
Your saying that the Magical Energy is "Conjured." Right?
That is probably the best choice of words.
The mage conjures the magic energy and constructs this magic energy in a way to resemble an image.
This image that is made out of magical energy is called a 'conjuration'.
So, every single spell that the Wizard casts is a conjuration, right? This is where your logic seems to go. From lighting all the candles in the room to a big fireball in the hallway, everything is conjured up. Right?
I think your putting to much work into a simple power structure to come up with your own take on things. We, all the other posters on this thread, including Celticmutt, don't agree with you.
Mecha, about the 3e Detect Magic. I dont think it helps.
It doesnt specifically mention anything about illusion.
Suppose you 'target' an empty square as the locus for an illusion. By the 3e rules, that square would still emanate a magical aura. Thats why anyone who looked at it would get the false sensations.
Even tho there is no real image there, I would say there is real magical energy there. Basically its the transmitter of the false sensations. (This would be true for the 'target' of an Invisibility spell too.)
So 3e Detect Magic doesnt help either way.
On the other hand, the 3e False Vision spell seems to confirm there is no 'objectively existing' image.
Here is the spell description.False Vision
Illusion (Glamer)
Any divination (scrying) spell used to view anything within the area of this spell, instead receives a false image (as the Major Image spell), as defined by you at the time of casting.
As long as the duration lasts, you can concentrate to change the image as desired. While you aren’t concentrating, the image remains static.
First. In my reading, only the one who is trying to scry the location longdistance sees this false image. The people who are actually at the location dont actually see false and just go about their business as normal. This would prove there is no objectively existing image, because if there was, the people actually there would see it too.
Second, regarding changing the false image. I assume the word 'static' here doesnt mean frozen. For example, if the spell set the false image to be a man sitting by the fireplace sipping on whiskey, the scryer would see this figure breathing, shuffling around, lifting and setting down the glass, and so on. Thus, 'concentrate to change the image' means more-or-less concentrate to change whatever channel on TV you want any potential scryers to see.
In short, there is no objectively existing image, but any scryer gets a 'false sensation' of one.
That is still objective by both of our definitions. It meets my standard because the image is objective: chosen by the caster with one image for anyone who sees the illusion at the same time. And it meets you definition because: it's an object (magical energy) acting on a person's senses from outside their mind.
So, every single spell that the Wizard casts is a conjuration, right?
No, only conjurations are conjurations. For example,
Summoning powers arent conjurations. They are preexisting creatures 'brought from elsewhere'.
Evocation powers (introduced as a keyword by Essentials) arent conjurations. Even tho evocations are made out of 'magical energy' they arent an image of a creature or object. For example, the Holy Lantern power is a conjuration because it looks 'like a lantern'. By contrast, the Wizard Light cantrip isnt a conjuration is because its only a continual explosion of light without any structured image.
And so on.
Conjuration has a reasonably specific definition, and only effects that fit this definition should be called conjurations.
That is still objective by both of our definitions.
• It meets my standard because the image is objective: chosen by the caster with one image for anyone who sees the illusion at the same time.
• And it meets your definition because: it's an object (magical energy) acting on a person's senses from outside their mind.
Re False Vision.
I agree there is magical energy on the location that is being cloaked. But I disagree the people at that location see the 'cloak'.
That is still objective by both of our definitions.
• It meets my standard because the image is objective: chosen by the caster with one image for anyone who sees the illusion at the same time.
• And it meets your definition because: it's an object (magical energy) acting on a person's senses from outside their mind.
Re False Vision.
I agree there is magical energy on the location that is being cloaked. But I disagree the people at that location see the 'cloak'.
Ah, but that's why this arguement has no resolution. Suppose those who disbelieve an illusion are just those who are unable to see the cloak that would make them see the illusion instead. We don't know how illusion magic actually works, and we never will.
Ah, but that's why this arguement has no resolution.
Heh, which is why Dave who normally keeps his cool has gotten so infuriated.Still, it is an important mechanical question for D&D 4e rules to make clear. For example, if a mage casts an illusion on a square, are all the allies of the mage automatically victims of the illusion? Or can the mage decide, the senses of certain allies are unaffected? I suppose the power description itself will determine the answer to that specific question by using terms like 'creatures', 'enemies', 'allies' and so on. However, because of the sheer unlimited number of scenarios that an illusion can create, there will also be an unlimited number of ways to interact with it. Sometimes, DMs must know whether or not an image actually physically exists or not, to consistenty adjudicate the players interaction. (Sort of like the take-a-photograph scenario.) There needs to be clear and easy-to-understand rules here.
Ventnor,
No, seriously. CelticMutt didnt contribute a single argument to the debate in this entire thread.
Blatant lies don't help your point. I've repeatedly stated the one single reason why your argument fails - Illusions and Conjurations are two different things under the rules, according to the keywords alone. That is not going to change.
So, every single spell that the Wizard casts is a conjuration, right?
No, only conjurations are conjurations. For example,
Summoning powers arent conjurations. They are preexisting creatures 'brought from elsewhere'.
Evocation powers (introduced as a keyword by Essentials) arent conjurations. Even tho evocations are made out of 'magical energy' they arent an image of a creature or object. For example, the Holy Light power is a conjuration because it looks 'like a lantern'. By contrast, the Wizard Light cantrip isnt a conjuration is because its only a continual explosion of light without any structured image.
And so on.
Conjuration has a reasonably specific definition, and only effects that fit this definition should be called conjurations.
Sooo .... Evocations and Summons aren't Conjurations because they have a Keyword that says they're not, but Illusions that have a keyword that says they're not Conjurations are actually Conjurations? Riiiight.
Illusions deceive the mind or the senses.
Illusions deceive the mind psionically.
Illusions deceive the senses directly using psionic energy.
If a power deceives the senses by altering sensory data before it reaches the senses, it is not an illusion because it doesn't affect the senses directly.
It that about it?
This seems to be the gist of Haldrik's argument (please correct me if I get it wrong):
Illusions deceive the mind or the senses.
Illusions deceive the mind psionically.
Illusions deceive the senses directly using psionic energy.
If a power deceives the senses by altering sensory data before it reaches the senses, it is not an illusion because it doesn't affect the senses directly.
It that about it?
Not exactly. Rather ...
Illusions deceive the mind or the senses.
Conjurations dont deceive the mind or the senses.
Even if you conjure an insubstantial image of a wall. (Wall Of Inky Night.) The image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Suppose the illusion is exactly the same as a conjuration. (A wall of darkness.) Its insubstantial image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of the sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Suppose the illusion is exactly the same as a conjuration. (A wall of darkness.) Its insubstantial image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of the sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Or maybe you're just conjuring a layer of deceptive energy over the area to be illusioned, and that deceptive energy actually manipulates viewers' senses in a way predetermined by the caster. Like I said, this arguement is unresolveable until someone proves that magic is real.
Suppose the illusion is exactly the same as a conjuration. (A wall of darkness.) Its insubstantial image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of the sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Or maybe you're just conjuring a layer of deceptive energy over the area to be illusioned, and that deceptive energy actually manipulates viewers' senses in a way predetermined by the caster.
Heh, thats what Iv been saying since post one. The illusion powers directly alter the mind and the sensations of the creature. But Iv been a bit of a lone voice calling out in the wilderness.
Still, I feel it helps to focus attention on the 'deceptive magical energy' itself. It makes it easier to visualize what the illusion power is doing. Il get back to this thought in my next post.
Like I said, this arguement is unresolveable ...
Illusion has a soft but forceful logical problem. The problem is solvable but requires clarification. An ultimatum seems to be in play, so between the two scenarios, for the most part, only one is possible.
Generally speaking, it is logically impossible for illusions to produce a physically existing image. Therefore, for illusions to subjectively manipulate sensations remains the viable option.
Illusion = deceives the mind or the senses
Conjuration ≠ deceives the mind or the senses
Conjuration = creates a physically existing image out of magical energy
If: illusion = creates a physically existing image out of magical energy
Then: illusion = conjuration
Then: illusion ≠ deceives the mind or the senses
Then: illusion ≠ illusion
In other words, generally speaking, there is no such thing as an illusion that creates a physically existing image.
Therefore, as a general rule for the structure of the game design, making illusion powers create the image by directly manipulating the sensations, seems logically preferable.
Il go into how the 'deceptive magical energy' of illusion can form an image in the next post.
Or maybe you're just conjuring a layer of deceptive energy over the area to be illusioned, and that deceptive energy actually manipulates viewers' senses in a way predetermined by the caster.
I think this is a great way to describe it. I love your coining of the phrase 'deceptive energy' because it defines clearly what 'deceives the senses' means.
deceptive energy: an aura of magical energy that manipulates the sensations of observers.
In other words, when illusionists use illusion powers, they swathe a creature (or object or empty square) in an aura of deceptive magical energy. This magical energy manipulates the sensations of observers.
So, if illusionists want to appear as some other creature or to go invisible, they cloak themselves in an aura of deceptive energy. The illusionists themselves remain unchanged, but whoever sees their cloaking sees whatever the illusionists predetermined the observer to see. The illusionists may perceive their own surrounding aura of deception as a 'aura' of psionic energy, a 'nimbus' of divine energy, a 'shroud' of shadow energy, a 'cloak' of arcane energy, or whatever, or even choose to experience the same sensations as the other observers do.
It is an extremely efficient form of magic. Rather than wasting all that magic energy to actually transform the creature itself, illusion surgically strikes the gates of perception to impose an impression - a thin 'veil' that looks like the transformation. But it is *virtually* the same. Because of the subtle nature of this deceptive energy it should be more difficult to sense the presence of its magic, compared to other schools of magical effects.
Suppose the illusion is exactly the same as a conjuration. (A wall of darkness.) Its insubstantial image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of the sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Or maybe you're just conjuring a layer of deceptive energy over the area to be illusioned, and that deceptive energy actually manipulates viewers' senses in a way predetermined by the caster.
Heh, thats what Iv been saying since post one. The illusion powers directly alter the mind and the sensations of the creature. But Iv been a bit of a lone voice calling out in the wilderness.
Actually, if my theory is correct, the illusionist is conjuring the deceptive energy around/over the object/area. It's the energy that does the deceiving, the illusionist simply conjures it and programs the desired image.
Illusion = deceives the mind or the senses
Conjuration ≠ deceives the mind or the senses
Conjuration = creates a physically existing image out of magical energy
If: illusion = creates a physically existing image out of magical energy
Then: illusion = conjuration
Then: illusion ≠ deceives the mind or the senses
Then: illusion ≠ illusion
...is inaccurate. There is a more logical way of stating the difference, a way that all of us have been repeating to you since your first post. It goes something like this:
Illusion = deceives the mind or the senses
Conjuration ≠ deceives the mind or the senses
Illusion = deceives the mind or the senses (be it via direct affect on the mind or senses of a target with a power that lists the deceived creature as the target of the spell, or an objectively existing energy, produced by some arcane magical means, that lacks physical reality).
Conjuration = creates a physically existing form out of magical energy (which does not equate to image. What a conjuration produces is not an image. It has some sort of physically existing reality, no matter how insubstantial that reality might be).
That is the most logical conclusion one can come to from the text of the D&D products, because that is what they explicitly state. This conclusion can be arrived at via illusion spells that tell you that they manipulate the senses by manipulating the shape of shadows. This conclusion can be derived at via illusion spells that don't list creatures whose minds are effected as the target of an illusion spell, but rather the person or space that has an illusion placed upon it). This conclusion can be derived from the fact that the illusion keyword says that it deceives the senses, and the conjuration power says that it creates something that resembles a "creature, object, or some other phenomenon," without deceiving the senses (because it is not an illusion spell).
In other words, while I may be wrong, it seems to me that MechaPilot, like everyone else, is disagreeing with you.
Suppose the illusion is exactly the same as a conjuration. (A wall of darkness.) Its insubstantial image of the wall really objectively exists. Its not an illusion. There is zero manipulation of the sensations, and zero manipulation of the mind. Even if creatures can easily pass thru the wall, its still, by definition, a conjuration. Its a real image of an 'object' (in this case a wall) made out of 'magical energy'.
Or maybe you're just conjuring a layer of deceptive energy over the area to be illusioned, and that deceptive energy actually manipulates viewers' senses in a way predetermined by the caster.
Heh, thats what Iv been saying since post one. The illusion powers directly alter the mind and the sensations of the creature. But Iv been a bit of a lone voice calling out in the wilderness.
Actually, if my theory is correct, the illusionist is conjuring the deceptive energy around/over the object/area. It's the energy that does the deceiving, the illusionist simply conjures it and programs the desired image.
Thats exactly what Im saying.
The distinction Im making between a 'conjuration' and an 'illusion' is ...
• The conjuration of an 'image' is an objectively existing 'construct' made out of the magical energy. An actual object (even if this object is made out of 'nothingness').
• The illusion of an 'image' is actually a 'veil' of sensory manipulation that the magical energy radiates against each creature. The creature experiences these sensations subjectively - virtually. Indeed, the Illusionist must 'program' this energy to predetermine what experience it will transmit.
I suspect you may have responded before reading the next post afterward, but just to recap ...
This magical energy manipulates the sensations of observers. So, if illusionists want to appear as some other creature or to go invisible, they cloak themselves in an aura of deceptive energy. The illusionists themselves remain unchanged, but whoever sees their cloaking sees whatever the illusionists predetermined the observer to see. The illusionists may perceive their own surrounding aura of deception as a 'aura' of psionic energy, a 'nimbus' of divine energy, a 'shroud' of shadow energy, a 'cloak' of arcane energy, or whatever, or even choose to experience the same sensations as the other observers do.
Though, if everyone perceives the magical energy in the same way, it still becomes something that can be considered to be an objectively existing image. Indeed, I am not sure I see much of a difference between what he is describing and a hologram (which he claims is a conjuration). But I have to run right now, so I will explain why I see that description and a hologram to be much the same thing at a later date and time...
The Holy Lantern is a conjuration that is a hologram. Likewise the Wall Of Ink Night is a hologram (of darkness).
Light and darkness dont 'deceive the senses'. Regardless of how convincing their various appearances can be, the presence and absence of light is simply a fact.
Description by Dave: Conjuration = creates a physically existing form out of magical energy (which does not equate to image. What a conjuration produces is not an image. It has some sort of physically existing reality, no matter how insubstantial that reality might be).
Dave, there are problematics with your current description of 'conjuration' above.
• Image and form are synonyms. An image can be three-dimensional, just like a form can be two-dimensional.
• I agree, 'the conjuration has a physically existing reality, no matter how insubstantial.' Which is why you can 'conjure' a hologram. A conjuration of any appearance. You can conjure a two dimensional shape, a hollow three dimensional shape ... or even a reality-bending planar-spacial distortion involving light.
Description by Dave: Illusion = deceives the mind or the senses (be it via direct affect on the mind or senses of a target with a power that lists the deceived creature as the target of the spell, or an objectively existing energy, produced by some arcane magical means, that lacks physical reality).
Regarding your current description of illusion.
• We both agree illusion powers *can* work 'via direct affect on the mind or senses', so the dispute boils down to whether or not illusion powers *always* do.
• We both agree an illusion creates 'objectively existing [magical] energy'. But if this energy is used to make a shape that is made out of this energy, then it is by definition a conjuration. There are powers whose conjurations are made out of pure 'arcane energy'. I would like you to go into clearer detail to explain why such an image of an 'object or creature' that is made out of pure arcane energy *wouldnt* be a conjuration.
Though, if everyone perceives the magical energy in the same way, it still becomes something that can be considered to be an objectively existing image.
Dave, I am counting on your good will to try come up with a description of illusion that can alleviate some of my design concerns as well as your concerns.
• A conjuration simply exists: everyone senses it by whatever means normally available to them.
• By contrast, the illusion as a web of sensations: the illusionist can pick and choose who experiences the virtual reality and who doesnt.
Though, if everyone perceives the magical energy in the same way, it still becomes something that can be considered to be an objectively existing image. Indeed, I am not sure I see much of a difference between what he is describing and a hologram (which he claims is a conjuration). But I have to run right now, so I will explain why I see that description and a hologram to be much the same thing at a later date and time...
Ok, so, as I was saying. All spells use "magical energy." Everyone seems to be in agreement on that. Illusion spells create magical energy that deceives the senses. Everyone seems to be in agreement on that. An illusionist can "conjure" (not to be confused with the conjuration school of magic) a font of magical energy which deceives the senses, causing anyone who percieves that font of magical energy to see an image of something that doesn't actually exist in the space filled by this illusive magical energy. Everyone is in agreement on that as well.
Remove magic, and replace it with science, and that describes a hologram. A hologram is defined by wikipedia as:
Holography (from the Greek, ὅλος hólos whole + γραφή grafē writing, drawing) is a technique that allows the light scattered from an object to be recorded and later reconstructed so that it appears as if the object is in the same position relative to the recording medium as it was when recorded. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object were still present, thus making the recorded image (hologram) appear three dimensional.
I actually take a small amount of issue with wikipedia's definition. Holograms do not have to be recorded, in the sense that the patterns of scattered light saved in the holographic device always come from a preexisting image that trully did scatter the light in the pattern saved.Theoretically, holograms can also be created. Theoretically, a three dimensional imaging system can be used to craft an image instead of recording one off of a true object. The difference is akin to the difference between a photograph and a piece of computer generated 3D art. Because of that, I find something like this definition (found via Google Web Definitions) to be slightly better:
holography - the branch of optics that deals with the use of coherent light from a laser in order to...create a three-dimensional image.
But that is a discussion for another day, as the discussion is fairly ancillary to the actual discussion at hand. For the purposes of this discussion, what is important is that a hologram involves a transmitter capable of producing scattered light in a pattern that mimics the perception created by a physical object occupying 3D space. The object of mimicry does not actually exist. What exists is merely a type of energy, a type of wavelength, that we describe as scattered light in layman's terms. This scattered light, when perceived by human (ocular) senses, tricks the brain into seeing a 3D object. The object that the brain thinks it sees is not really there. All that actually exists in the space in question is this type of energy we call scattered light.
Lets juxtapose that description against the description of an illusion that we can all agree upon. An illusion can be created via a font of magical energy. We all agree on that. A hologram is created via a type of energy called scattered light. In both the case of the illusion and the hologram energy is transmitted from a transmitter (be it a piece of technology or a supernatural character class). The font of energy created by an illusion deceives the senses so that its viewer perceives the existence of something that does not actually exist. A hologram produces scattered light that, when viewed by the ocular nerve, causes the perceiver to view a 3D object that does not actually exist. In both cases, the energy transmitted fools the senses into perceiving something that does not actually exist. In the case of then type of illusion we are describing, the object perceived does not actually exist, but arcane illusive "energy" really does fill the space in question (we have all agreed that this is the case). That is no different than the hologram, which does not actually exist as the object perceived but rather exists as a type of energy we call scattered light.
The only difference between a magical illusion and a hologram is that the exact "scientific" mechanics of the cause of deception, in regards to the illusion, are an unknown; the deception is the product of magic, and the exact mechanics of the deception are hand waved away via the phrase "its magic." A hologram, on the other hand, is a scientific concept. We understand exactly how it deceives the senses. We understand how that scattered light hits the optical nerve, and how that sensation causes particular information to flow along the nervous system to the brain, causing the brain to perceive something that doesn't exist (and make no mistake, the object that the hologram appears to be does not exist). On the other hand, the deceptive illusive energy produced by the illusion spell can not be realistically explained, because magic does not follow the scientific laws of the world as we know it. However, the characters in the fantasy world who use magic do understand how it works. That understanding is called Arcana. Arcana can explain exactly why the objectively existing illusive energy that produces the illusion spell tricks the senses into seeing a creature or object that does not exist just as science can explain why scattered light can trick the brain, through the ocular nerves, to see an object that does not exist.
The difference between an illusion and a hologram is not the difference between an illusion and a conjuration, it is the difference between magic and science. Insofar as magic and science can be used as allegorical terms that describe each other, any illusion that produces a font of magical energy that both objectively exists within a particular space and deceives the senses of anyone who views that magical energy into seeing something that does not exist, such as an illusion that cloaks a single target with invisibility, can be used as an allegory of a hologram. Does such an illusion affect the senses? Certainly. It deceives the senses. That is a form of affect. But a hologram performs that form of affect as well. It tricks the brain into seeing a physical object that does not exist, because all that exists is the allegory of the illusive magical energy, the scattered light.
When you describe affect in the form of direct manipulation of the senses via a form of mind control, you describe a power where any creature affected must exist as a "target" of the illusion, and as such will be listed in the "target line" of any given power. Spells such as invisibility, fortress of shadows, or the new playtest power distracting illusion, are not that sort of illusion. Any power that directly affects a target's senses must have the affected creature listed in the power's target line. Any other illusion power conjures a font of magical energy that deceives the senses of anyone viewing that font of magical energy into believing that (a specific) something exists that is not really there. The exact mechanics of that deception are not explained, but they don't need to be. It is enough to know that that is what the illusion does. And that is a very different effect than a conjuration spell. A conjuration spell conjures magical energy and shapes it into the form of the object or creature you are trying to mimic. A conjuration is as real as the object being mimicked is. A conjuration of a cat is as physically real as a cat. A conjuration of a mist is as insubstantial as mist, but it is still as physically real as mist. That is the difference between a conjuration and an illusion. A technological allegory for a conjuration would be something like an item produced by a replicator from Star Treck, except that the particular item produced ceases to exist if the transmitter stops sustaining the physical form produced by the magical energy.
I want to point out a mechanical distinction between conjuration and illusion.
• A conjuration simply exists: everyone senses it by whatever means normally available to them.
• By contrast, the illusion as a web of sensations: the illusionist can pick and choose who experiences the virtual reality and who doesnt.
This can be objectively proven to be a false mechanical distinction. There are a number of illusory powers that affect everyone in the illusions range. The illusionist can not pick and choose who experiences those illusions. Likewise, spells like invisibility state only that the target is invisible. That target is invisible to everyone. The illusionist can not choose to have certain people unaffected by the illusion, because the power does not say that the illusionist can.
I want to point out a mechanical distinction between conjuration and illusion.
• A conjuration simply exists: everyone senses it by whatever means normally available to them.
• By contrast, the illusion as a web of sensations: the illusionist can pick and choose who experiences the virtual reality and who doesnt.
This can be objectively proven to be a false mechanical distinction. There are a number of illusory powers that affect everyone in the illusions range. That target is invisible to everyone.
I didnt mean to imply all illusion powers do this. It would depend on the purpose of the specific power and its description. Some illusions make sense to 'broadcast' because of concept or to simplify the gaming mechanics. Nevertheless, the possibility of picking and choosing who experiences the virtual reality is interesting, and illusion powers can explore this.
I want to point out a mechanical distinction between conjuration and illusion.
• A conjuration simply exists: everyone senses it by whatever means normally available to them.
• By contrast, the illusion as a web of sensations: the illusionist can pick and choose who experiences the virtual reality and who doesnt.
This can be objectively proven to be a false mechanical distinction. There are a number of illusory powers that affect everyone in the illusions range. That target is invisible to everyone.
I didnt mean to imply all illusion powers do this. It would depend on the purpose of the specific power and its description. Some illusions make sense to 'broadcast' because of concept or to simplify the gaming mechanics. Nevertheless, the possibility of picking and choosing who experiences the virtual reality is interesting, and illusion powers can explore this.
Except, all powers do not give you the possibility of picking and choosing who experiences the virtual reality. The distinction you have found is a distinction between particular powers. It is true that some illusions can pick and choose who is affected. But it is not true that all illusions allow you to pick and choose who is affected. Moreover, the distinction you are describing doesn't imply that your interpretation is correct. In fact, considering that some illusions affect only specific targets, and some illusions affect anyone who view them, it suggests quite the opposite; it suggests that two types of illusion exists, one of which can be described as an allegory for a technologically produced hologram.
All spells use "magical energy." Everyone seems to be in agreement on that.
Illusion spells create magical energy that deceives the senses. Everyone seems to be in agreement on that.
An illusionist can "conjure" (not to be confused with the conjuration school of magic) a font of magical energy which deceives the senses, causing anyone who percieves that font of magical energy to see an image of something that doesn't actually exist in the space filled by this illusive magical energy. Everyone is in agreement on that as well.
So far so good.
Remove magic, and replace it with science, and that describes a hologram. A hologram is defined by wikipedia as:
Holography a technique that allows the light scattered from an object to be recorded [typically in a kind of photographic film] and later reconstructed so that it appears as if the object is in the same position [while looking thru the film]. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object were still present, thus making the recorded 'hologram' appear three dimensional.
I actually take a small amount of issue with wikipedia's definition. Holograms do not have to be recorded. Theoretically, holograms can also be created. The difference is akin to the difference between a photograph and a piece of computer generated 3D art.
Agreed, ideally the scientists will hopefully come up with a feasible digital screen technology (similar to an HD screen) that allows artists to 'paint' 3-D images on the fly.
holography - the branch of optics that deals with the use of coherent light ... in order to ... create a three-dimensional image.
I ellipsed the technological components (laser, looking thru a photographic film, etc.) for a definition of hologram that is suitable for magic.
• Hologram: a three-dimentional image that is made out of the manipulation light.
This would apply to the scifi fantasy version of a hologram, like the various examples from Star Wars that exist autonomously (without looking thru some kind of film).
Basically, all the above is agreeable. Below Id like to parse any difficulties with applying the concept of hologram to a school of magic.
What is important is that a hologram involves a transmitter capable of producing scattered light in a pattern that mimics the perception created by a physical object occupying 3D space.
Technically, it isnt the transmitter (the laser) that creates the scattered light pattern. Its the photographic film that one is looking thru that creates this image.
Analogously, just like the rainbow is really the misty water droplets that the light is shining thru, the pattern of light of a hologram is really the photographic film that one is looking thru. With regard to D&D magic, a conjuration in the form of a hologram would really be the magical energy standing as radiant energy.
The object of mimicry does not actually exist.
So actually the 'object of mimicry' really does exist, whether it is made out of water droplets, photographic plates, arcane energy, or a 'construct of radiant energy' (which is how Id describe Star Wars holograms).
What exists is merely a type of energy
Likewise for Holy Lantern, Wall of Light, Psychic Anomaly, and many other conjurations, 'what exists is merely a type of energy'.
'This scattered light, when perceived by human (ocular) senses, tricks the brain into seeing a 3D object.'
The conjuration of light 'tricks' the brain into seeing an image, in the same way an oil painting or a painted manikin 'tricks' the brain. (By the way you can even make an oil painting look 3-D by painting two slightly different images and show each eye only one (parallax vision).
The object that the brain thinks it sees is not really there.
The light really is there, as is whatever medium is structuring the patterns of light (droplets, photofilm, telekinetic field, arcane energy, etc.). The object of light really is physically there.
It is true that some illusions can pick and choose who is affected.
That is my point, and its an interesting mechanic.
An illusion is not like a hologram because both created scattered light. On the contrary, the fact that the hologram creates a scientifically explainable phenomenon is what differentiates a hologram and an illusion. Magic, its schools, its keywords, in D&D is not differentiated by the "science" behind how it produces given effects. Magic, its schools, its keywords, in D&D is differentiated by the result of the effects it produces. Some types of illusions are allegorical to holograms, within this context, because both conjure up a type of energy that results in the deception of the senses. In both cases, something does objectively exist, be it illusive magical energy or scattered light. In both cases, the object that the brain thinks it is seeing does not exist. In both cases, the result is a deception of the senses. In D&D, a magical effect that results in a deception of the senses is defined as an illusion. The "how" of that effect, the "science" behind its produced effect, is irrelevant. It is neither explained by the game, nor does it need to be... it is magic. Magic is beyond the preview of our understanding. The logic of magic is contrary to the logic of the natural world. In terms of produced effect, the produced effect of some types of illusions and holograms is identical. The method by which both effects are produced are obviously different, as one effect is produced by magic and the other is produced by science.
If you can't accept that, as I noted before, the problem is personal to your subjective head space, and is not an objective problem with the game; that is obvious based on the response your ideas have garnered in this thread. Neither I, nor anyone in this thread, shares your opinion. We are all fine with the game as is, and see it as being quite logical within the context of magic, and differentiation via the result of a produced effect.
Explain why an object of light *isnt* a conjuration.
(The Holy Lantern conjuration is a hologram, lots of conjurations are 'mere energy', and so on.)
Your own argument of the hologram proved the hologram must be a physically existing object (the photographic film itself).
LOL! Its not fair to make me read a wall of text about the science of optical technology. Then tell me science isnt important, just because your argument happened to backfire and prove my point that a hologram really is a physically existing object.
Well, your argument did backfire. You insisted a hologram wasnt an object, and yet, in reallife it really is an object, and logically, in principle, it must be a highly structured object. Whether this object is fantastically made out light itself, or whether it is some magical medium that is refracting and reflecting surrounding light, it must be a physically existing object that is structuring the light.
The point is that the scattered light and the illusive magical energy are allegorically interchangable.
Just to be clear, the hologram isnt 'scattering' the light in the way you seem to describe. Rather the light must travel with extreme precision, which is why a *laser* beam is necessary with a near-perfect ordering of light. The reason the hologram appears 'three dimensional' is because the light that reaches the left eye is different from the light that reaches the right eye. Thus because of parallax vision, it reaches the eyes in the same way as any three-dimensional object does. If this two-dimensional holographic film truly 'scattered' (incoherent) light, then the same light would reach both eyes and the object would be 'flat'.
The point is, wherever this object is, which is emitting (or refracting or reflecting) this light to the eyes of the viewer, it must be an objectively, physically existing, highly structured object.
Whether this object is made out of radiant energy itself, or a telekinetic force, or pure arcane energy, it must be a highly ordered construction. Hence necessarily a conjuration.
Also, I asked you to explain why you feel a hologram *isnt* a conjuration. You still havent answered that question.
Well, your argument did backfire. You insisted a hologram wasnt an object, and yet, in reallife it really is an object, and logically, in principle, it must be a highly structured object. Whether this object is fantastically made out light itself, or whether it is some magical medium that is refracting and reflecting surrounding light, it must be a physically existing object that is structuring the light.
No, it really didn't backfire. You see, a hologram of a chair isn't a chair. In the space where one sees the chair existing, no chair exists. And that physically existing object that you talk about, which structures the light, is little more than a transmitter. It is the spellcaster. It is the holographic film and laser light. The fact that you can't understand that has nothing to do with my argument backfiring and everything to do with your personal conceptual blocks.
Just to be clear, the hologram isnt 'scattering' the light in the way you seem to describe. Rather the light must travel with extreme precision, which is why a *laser* beam is necessary with a near-perfect ordering of light. The reason the hologram appears 'three dimensional' is because the light that reaches the left eye is different from the light that reaches the right eye. Thus because of parallax vision, it reaches the eyes in the same way as any three-dimensional object does. If this two-dimensional holographic film truly 'scattered' (incoherent) light, then the same light would reach both eyes and the object would be 'flat'.
Just to be clear, the type of light that a hologram produces/mimics is scattered light. The fact that the hologram has to scatter the light in a very specific way to produce a specific image is both obvious, and irrelevant. An illusion needs to be programmed in a very specific way to produce a specific effect. An illusion is no more random than a hologram. It is simply produced via different medium. The effect is the same. As for the way the light reaches the eye, that is the realm of science. In terms of fantasy, the image perceived is perceived as being real. Something in the process of that perception is thus the same as the process of perceiving a real object as well. What exactly is the same is irrelevant. We don't need to know how magic works. It is enough to know that it does. The end result, however, is the same. One perceives a non existent object. The fact that some other "object"/energy exists is irrelevant. That is true of the illusion as well. The illusive magical energy that fills the space does actually exist, it does actually fill the space, it creates an objectively existing image in so far as anyone who perceives the space perceives the same image. The only difference is the difference between magic and science. That is all.
The point is, wherever this object is, which is emitting (or refracting or reflecting) this light to the eyes of the viewer, it must be an objectively, physically existing, highly structured object.
The point is, the process of emitting information makes the emitter a transmitter. The point is, that transmitter is analogues to the spellcaster him/herself. Just as you need a physically real, existing, highly structured object to transmit a hologram, you need a physically real, existing, spellcaster capable of creating a highly structured spell in order to transmit an illusion. The physical object you are describing is no different from a magical item capable of creating an illusion. The only real difference here is that magic, unlike technological effects, can be transmitted by a person directly...
Whether this object is made out of radiant energy itself, or a telekinetic force, or pure arcane energy, it must be a highly ordered construction. Hence necessarily a conjuration.
...unless, of course, that object you were talking about is the energy, the light, that composes the hologram itself, and not the technological device that transmits the light. If that is the case, your argument is ridiculous. That is no different than the energy, the illusive magical energy, that composes the illusion. It too actually exists. If it didn't exist there would be no illusion. It too is highly structured. If it wasn't, everyone who perceived it would not perceive the same image. In this case, the construct of light that is visible as a 3D image is allegorical to the construct of illusive magical energy that is visible as a 3D image. The only difference is that we understand how the construct of light hits our eyes in order to trick our brain, and we don't understand how the construct of magic hits our senses, because it is magic.
Also, I asked you to explain why you feel a hologram *isnt* a conjuration. You still havent answered that question.
It is self evident. Because a hologram of a chair can not be sat in. A conjuration of a chair can be sat in. A conjuration has physically existing form that matches the form of the thing you are conjuring. A conjuration does not trick your senses into believing that you are sensing something other than what you are. So long as the spellcaster maintains the form conjured, that form matches the object or phenomenon it resembles in every possible way. A hologram doesn't do that. It tricks your brain into visually perceiving physical matter when nothing exists but light. Similarly, an illusion has the same effect. It tricks a character into perceiving physical matter where nothing exists but illusive magical energy. The fact that light and illusive magical energy are different is irrelevant. Spells are not defined by how they produce an effect but rather by the effect produced. A holy lantern is a conjuration because the phenomenon it conjures really is the phenomenon you perceive. The spell appears to create light, and it really does create light. If you conjure a chair, a physical reality that matches a chair must really exist. If you conjure a mist, a physical reality that matches a mist must really exist. If you conjure a bear, a physical reality that matches a bear really exists.
A conjuration is defined as the production of an effect that resembles a real object, creature, or phenomenon. An illusion is defined as the production of an effect that decieves the mind or senses into believing that they percieve an object, creature, or illusion. The text of the game is explicit in this. Your conceptual block is that you can not let go of the "science," the "arcane mechanics," used to produce these effects. You are trying to define spells based on how they are created, not on what end result they create.
No, obvisouly that isn't possible, it isn't conjured.
No, it really didn't backfire. You see, a hologram of a chair isn't a chair.
Yes, your argument really did backfire. You see, a hologram of a chair is a photographic plate.
An object.
That physically existing object that you talk about, which structures the light, is little more than a transmitter.
This physically existing object is a physically existing object.
This object is a highly organized form.
It is the spellcaster.
So, the spellcaster is bending the light telekinetically? You need to explain your 'allegory' here. *How* is the spellcaster like a photographic plate? Is the spellcaster transparent, so the light is shining thru em and refracting thru em toward precise directions at each and every eye of each and every creature within line-of-sight? Obviously the spellcaster emself isnt the photographic plate. Obviously the magical energy is the photographic plate. Seriously, the moment you define this, you necessarily have physical object that is structuring the light.
It is the holographic film and laser light.
The holographic film ('it') is both
• a holographic film - that is, a highly structured physically existing object
• and the 'laser light' - that is, made out of light itself.
In other words, you just said the holographic film is a physically existing object that is made out of radiant energy. The definition of a conjuration.
The fact that you can't understand ...
Based on what you have said about holograms, I dont think you really understood how a hologram works. Unsurprisingly, your entire argument about holograms is untenable. Or at least, the descriptions of it reek of fasttalking.
That has nothing to do with my argument backfiring and everything to do with your personal conceptual blocks.
You have made it crystal clear the photographic film is a physically existing object. That is the opposite of what you were attempting to prove.
The type of light that a hologram produces/mimics is scattered light. The fact that the hologram has to scatter the light in a very specific way to produce a specific image is both obvious, and irrelevant.
It is highly relevant because the *precise* behavior of this light proves the object has a physically existing structure.
In terms of fantasy, the image [of the illusion] is perceived as being real. Something in the process of that perception is thus the same as the process of perceiving a real object as well.
Your description of illusion sounds an aweful lot like directly manipulating the sensations so the creature 'perceives' an image.
What exactly is the same is irrelevant. We don't need to know how magic works.
Sure. Now you refuse to admit you are wrong. So, now you *refuse* to explain your claim.
One perceives a non existent object.
Except the structure that is manipulating the light is an existent object that the observer perceives.
The fact that some other "object"/energy exists is irrelevant.
LOL! If you conjured 'some other object', then its a conjuration!
Except the structure that is manipulating the light is an existent object that the observer perceives.
What?
No, wait, let me read it again.
...
...
...
No, still confused. Are you saying that it is conjured because it isn't?
Wait... no...
Are you saying that because there is something else that made the illusion that... Sorry, sorry... little confused... because another object is used to create the illusion that.... no, sorry, that was the hologram...
What are you saying, exactly?
No, wait.
I don't want to know.
In any case, it is not a surprise to me that you have totally failed to see the point, despite the fact that the point is obvious. It is not a surprise to me that you are focusing on what a transmitter is composed of instead of focusing on what a transmitter is doing. It is not a surprise to me that you are still focusing on how an image is composed instead of on the result of its effect. It is not a surprise to me that you fail to realize that the exact operations of magic are irrelevant, because magic can never be explained reasonably (one of the defining characteristics of magic is that it defies reason). It is not a surprise to me that you try to draw non existent lines of difference between the allegorical connection present in illusive magical energy and energy in the form of scattered light. So you know what, you can continue to disagree. That is fine with me. It has become readily apparent to me that your agreement is irrelevant. You have proven your argument to be unreasonable. I am quite content to walk away from this thread having earned the agreement of absolutely every single poster other than you.
ThaX: He has conflated a couple of arguments into something of a nonsensical one. He has claimed that the physical machinery used to produce the hologram is real, and thus the hologram is not an illusion (I guess no illusion is an illusion as the caster that casts it is real), and simultaneously claimed that the light that the illusion is composed of is a complex physically existing entity (stretching the word physically to the point where it no longer means "of matter, of material," but rather means "of the laws of physics," thus ignoring the fact that the image produced doesn't exist because the light it is composed of actually does--at least from the point of view of physics and not human perception, because human perception perceives the hologram as something other than mere light). I guess no illusion is an illusion, and they are all in fact conjurations, because the presence of illusive magical energy makes the illusion a conjuration as that magical energy objectively exists, and the objective existence of any type of energy, including arcane illusive energy, stops the illusion from being an illusion... or something ridiculous like that. It is rare that I have read an argument so incredibly stupid. This thread really takes the cake as far as bologna is concerned. But whatever. Haldrik is going to stick to his guns no matter what, even when the foundation he builds his argument upon is made of rotting lunch meat, so more power to him.
Except the structure that is manipulating the light is an existent object that the observer perceives.
Are you saying that it is conjured because it isn't?
Thax, you seem to have misread what was said.
The 'structure that is manipulating the light' refers to the photographic plate, the actual magical structure that is giving light its form.
Cyber-Dave: The fact that some other "object"/energy exists is irrelevant.
This 'some other object' is a conjuration.
I rest my case.
Tell me Haldrik, if I am so wrong, ...
Your post degenerated into more obfuscation, vague (false) assertions, changing the subject, avoiding any clarifications or elaboration, rhetorical fallacy ...
If a politician did what your post did, for sure the politician would be trying to evade the issue.
The only way to construct a physically existing reality of a form of an object or a creature, is conjuration.
There are several ways to manipulate physically existing light, but the effect you are trying to achieve matters.
• Conjuration - can create a form of an object or a creature that is made out of magical energy.
• Evocation - can evoke an explosion of radiant energy
• Summoning - suppose there are creatures that are made entirely out of light, whose creature type includes the radiant keyword. These radiant creatures could be celestial creatures of the Astral Sea, Radiant Elementals from the Elemental Chaos, living constructs that Eladrin enlivened in the Feywild. You can summon a preexisting creature made out of light.
• Polymorph - you could shapechange a creature into a radiant creature.
If you use telekinesis to manipulate light to construct a form of an object that is made out of light, that object is a conjuration.
• If the telekinesis forms a telekinetic field to pattern the surrounding light, then the effect is a form of an object that is made out of magical energy, in this case, made out of force. This force is redirecting the surrounding light, sort of like an object made out of glass or water does.
• If the telekinesis is a kind of 'photokinesis' that evokes radiant energy and shapes into a the form of an object, then effect is a form of an object that is made out of magical energy, in this case, made out of radiant energy.
• Image and form are synonyms.
What is your authority for this statement? Every dictionary I've consulted disagrees.
• Image and form are synonyms.
What is your authority for this statement? Every dictionary I've consulted disagrees.
Heh, you are obviously not doing your research thoroughly.
For example, the DEFINITION of 'image' is ...
Miriam-Websters Dictionary:
im·age 1: a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : statue.
That doesn't make them synonyms. An imitation of a thing is not the thing itself.
Read the definition more carefully.
The image is a form.
The 'reproduction of the form' means there are two forms: the original form and the copied form.
Also, an image is especially a 'solid form'.
Also, what's the rest of the definition?
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
2
a : the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device
b : a visual representation of something: as (1) : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2) : a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)
b : a visual representation of something: as (1) : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2) : a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)
Definition of FORM
1
I don't see where it requires that an image be solid. Especially considering defintion 2
Thats why the DEFINITION uses the word 'especially'.
From the rest of the definition: 2. ... 4. ... 6. ...
Heh, I noticed you dont want anyone to know about definition 5 for 'image'.
also: definition of form1a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material.
b : a body (as of a person) especially in its external appearance or as distinguished from the face : figure.
All images are forms.
But not all forms are images.
An image is a form that is reproduced in some way from another form.
Notice, the conjuration is itself an 'image' because it is a form that 'resembles' the form of an object or a creature.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Haldrik makes valid points.
I'm unimpressed with the way some people are responding to them.
I probably agree that illusions should be mental.
Haldrik makes valid points.
I'm unimpressed with the way some people are responding to them.
I probably agree that illusions should be mental.
Really!? Care to point out exactly where. Is it where he states that an illusionist and a machine that both transmit energy are not analogous as transmitters? Or is it where he says that illusive energy that is objectively present in a space (because the target line lists the space as the target), and which causes everyone who sees that space to see a specific image, is not analogous to more scientific energy types that cause the exact same effect? Or maybe it is where he says that conjurations do what illusions do, because they deceive the senses? Or maybe it is where he claims that every creature that views the invisible creature is the target of the spell, and not the creature made invisible, contrary to the actual rules of the spell? I think we are all dying to know, which of Haldrik's points are valid?
Holograms are conjurations.
Also, if I look in a mirror. I don't think the mirror is 'deceiving my senses'. I think that it's just a mirror.
Holograms are conjurations.
Also, if I look in a mirror. I don't think the mirror is 'deceiving my senses'. I think that it's just a mirror.
Ah, I see, so you can't actually defend or list any of his "valid points." All you can do his repeat his assertion that holograms are conjurations, despite the fact that we have spells with the illusion keyword that explicitly describe their effects similar to that of a hologram, and despite the fact that it has been shown that a hologram is directly analogous to an illusion once you get beyond the fact that one is created via magic and the other via technology, and so are produced via different types of "energy." Neato. You certainly lend credence to his "valid" argument. Really!
See post number 126. Holograms are not conjurations. They are a trick of scientific energy that causes the ocular senses to percieve an image that does not actually exist (as anything beyond transmited energy). Illusions are exactly the same. The only difference is that one is composed of illusive magical energy, and the other is composed of electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye. In both cases, that energy deceives the senses. Holograms and illusions are not the same, because one is scientific and the other magical, but they are analogous.
And your argument about the mirror has already been covered as well. Illusion is a keyword given to supernatural effects. A natural mirror is not an illusion because it is not supernatural in origin. However, the basic effect of a mirror, produced via magic, is an illusion. In fact, that is objectively obvious as the spell "mirror sphere" is an illusion spell that, you guessed it, works via magical reflection.
Cyber-Dave, your argument is illogical.
Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Try to have fun.
Haldrik's argument is logically valid.
Cyber-Dave, your argument is illogical.
Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Try to have fun.
Uhu. Is that why your mirror example backfired? Is that why he has been unable to defend his arguments in the face of the game's actual text? Is that why you are unable to defend your assertions with anything beyond the statement that you are correct because you say so?
Based on actual text, we see that you are wrong. There is nothing logically valid about his argument. We have pages and pages of text that prove as much. We have his lack of actual text from the D&D books to support his assertions; we have the lack of any paragraph, anywhere, that says that all illusions exist only in the mind. We have a sentence that explicitly lists the mind as only one possible faculty which causes the perception of an illusion, and lists other senses as legitimate faculties of perception in regards to the illusion as well. We have powers that list spaces or targets as effected, and cause anyone who views those spaces or targets to see something despite the fact that the people viewing those spaces and targets are not listed as targets of the spell. We have illusions that say they are created via shadow magic, and woven with shadows. We have text that says that illusions are (any) spells that deceive the mind or senses. We have conjurations that say that they use magical energy to create a form that resembles an object, creature, or phenomenon (without deceiving the senses).
None of that supports the statement that Haldrik's argument is logically valid. All of it supports my argument. Which leads to the conclusion that your blanket statements are invalid and illogical.
If you don't agree, successfully defend his statements. Defend his assertion that the transmitter (composed of laser light projectors and holographic film) that casts light into the pattern of a hologram is not analogues to the transmitter (composed of the spell-casting character) that casts illusive energy into the pattern of an illusion, considering that both produce the effect of a visible 3D image that lacks physically perceivable form via the faculty of touch. Defend any of his bogus assertions, please.
Or, you know, just claim you are correct by default and prove your opinion to lack substance as a result...
Except the structure that is manipulating the light is an existent object that the observer perceives.
Are you saying that it is conjured because it isn't?
Thax, you seem to have misread what was said.
The 'structure that is manipulating the light' refers to the photographic plate, the actual magical structure that is giving light its form.
It is the "structure" that is playing the part of the Wizard in this case, while the Wizard warps and reconfigures the light with magic instead. I didn't miss read anything at all in this. Nothing is conjured, the item that is seen doesn't actually exist.
Perhaps your thinking of a different RPG system, like Mage:The Ascension.
Holograms are conjurations.
Also, if I look in a mirror. I don't think the mirror is 'deceiving my senses'. I think that it's just a mirror.
Holograms are conjurations.
Also, if I look in a mirror. I don't think the mirror is 'deceiving my senses'. I think that it's just a mirror.
Of course, his eyes are still perceiving the image in the mirror, it's because he already knows that a mirror is there that he interprets the image as false.
Think of some instances in movies where someone tries to do something against someone only to shatter the mirror that they had mistaken for that person. (The Shadow comes to mind, when Penelope trying to kill Lamont)
It is an illusion, one that isn't conjured. It is dispelled once the realization hits that it is just an image reflected off a mirror.
About mirrors.
Think of some instances in movies where someone tries to do something against someone only to shatter the mirror that they had mistaken for that person. (The Shadow comes to mind, when Penelope trying to kill Lamont)
It is an illusion, one that isn't conjured. It is dispelled once the realization hits that it is just an image reflected off a mirror.
This
It is the "structure" that is playing the part of the Wizard in this case, while the Wizard warps and reconfigures the light with magic instead. I didn't miss read anything at all in this. Nothing is conjured, the item that is seen doesn't actually exist.
A hologram is a physically existing phenomenon. The above description happens as follows.
'The Wizard warps and reconfigures the light with magic.'
The Wizard creates magical energy that warps and reconfigures the light.
The Wizard creates magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.
A Wizard power produces an effect, which is a creation of magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.
'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.'
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.
A hologram is a physically existing phenomenon. The above description happens as follows.
No, it is not. Not unless you extend physically to mean "exists in the realms of physics," because the image of the hologram itself is composed of nothing but electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye. That image can not be physically interacted with via the human faculty of touch. The object or creature that the image appears do be doesn't actually exist. That means that the end result is directly analogous to the creation of an image, that appears to be a creature or object, a creature or object that does not actually exist, via illusive magical energy. Both deceive the senses.
'The Wizard warps and reconfigures the light with magic.'
The Wizard creates magical energy that warps and reconfigures the light.
The Wizard creates magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.
A Wizard power produces an effect, which is a creation of magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.
'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical energy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon.'
This is disingenuous. An illusion creates an effect that deceives the mind or the senses. A conjuration uses magical energy to create a form that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon, without deceiving the senses. The game doesn't need to write that phrase. It is obvious, and inferred, because an illusion is a spell that deceives the mind or the senses, and the the conjuration is not an illusion (unless, of course, the spell has both keywords). Similarly, an illusion can only deceive the mind or senses into perceiving a creature, object, or phenomenon, or else it becomes a conjuration (because then you conjure up magical energy into a form that really does resemble that creature, object, or phenomenon, and does not merely deceive the senses into perceiving that creature, object, or phenomenon). If you create light that acts like light, you conjure light. If you create the image of a light, that doesn't actually improve anyone's visibility, with illusive magical energy, or you use that same illusive magical energy to create the image of a creature, object, or phenomenon, that doesn't exist in a physical medium that is perceivable via the faculty of touch, then you have deceived the senses and created an illusion. In the real world, the later effect is achieved by manipulating light. The exact mechanics that an illusion uses to produce this effect are not explicitly explained, and left to the realm of statement summed up by the phrase "its magic!". Indeed, the creation of a "light" that doesn't actually produce any light beyond its own image is not achievable in the real world. It is supernatural effect only explained by the exclamation, "its magic!". Though, some individual illusion spells do describe their effects as the result of warped shadows. Which, again, bears striking similarity to the idea that the effect can be achieved by warping light, because light and shadows are inverse realities. Shadow does not exist without light, at least without the aid of magic...
It is the "structure" that is playing the part of the Wizard in this case, while the Wizard warps and reconfigures the light with magic instead. I didn't miss read anything at all in this. Nothing is conjured, the item that is seen doesn't actually exist.
A hologram is a physically existing phenomenon. The above description happens as follows.
Uh... I just went through this. No, it isn't. It isn't there, it has no mass, no structure.
Your first focus was on the object that created the image of the Hologram, now your saying the same thing about the image itself.
In the previous systems, a conjuration spell had some sort of item or creature that came about when it was cast, Illusions were never included in this. You would have us believe that this has changed for 4th edition. It has not.
A hologram is a physically existing phenomenon.
Uh... I just went through this. No, it isn't. It isn't there, it has no mass, no structure.
You keep referring to mass like its important or something.
If it was because the term 'physically existing' is unclear, then:
A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
You keep referring to mass like its important or something.
If it was because the term 'physically existing' is unclear, then:
A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
False. A conjuration resembles a creature, object, or some other phenomenon, without tricking the senses or mind. The only time a conjuration can lack mass is if the phenomenon that the conjuration resembles itself lacks mass. However, any time you conjure up an image which tricks the senses into believing that it is something other than what it appears to be, it doesn't matter if the image objectively exists or not, it ceases to be a conjuration and becomes an illusion. Indeed, as we have illusion spells that target a space, and which create an image that can be seen by anyone who views that space, which lack any fluff which claims that the illusion doesn't objectively exist as an image in that space, which contain fluff that claims that the image does objectively exist in that space, and as there isn't a single sentence anywhere in the game that claims that all illusions exist only as subjective figments of the imagination, it is objectively obvious that you are wrong.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
However, any time you conjure up an image which tricks the senses into believing that it is something other than what it appears to be, it doesn't matter if the image objectivly exists or not, it ceases to be a conjuration and becomes an illusion.
So, you grant the hologram really is a conjuration; however, your argument is, if the Wizard uses a conjuration specifically to 'deceive the senses', then it also qualifies as an illusion. Is that correct?
Accordingly, the effect could in principle have both of the keywords, conjuration and illusion. But you feel, the illusion keyword overrides the conjuration keyword to describe the effect. Is that correct?
However, any time you conjure up an image which tricks the senses into believing that it is something other than what it appears to be, it doesn't matter if the image objectivly exists or not, it ceases to be a conjuration and becomes an illusion.
So, you grant the hologram really is a conjuration; however, your argument is, if the Wizard uses the conjuration specifically to 'deceive the senses', then it also qualifies as an illusion. Is that correct?
Accordingly, the effect could in principle have both of the keywords, conjuration and illusion. But you feel, the illusion keyword overrides the conjuration keyword to describe the effect. Is that correct?
No. When you conjure up illusive magical energy, you are not casting a conjuration. Quite aside from the keyword definitions WotC has created for these terms, there are standard English definitions given to these words as well. For example, the word conjure is often used with a definition something along the lines of "To influence or effect by or as if by magic" or "to produce as if by magic." By that definition, all spells perform an act of conjuration. Indeed, one of the definitions of the act of conjuring is to "evoke." The words are synonyms. So, all spells in D&D are also acts of evocation. And yet, in D&D, evocation spells and conjuration spells are not the same thing. Moreover, many spells have neither of those two keywords. There is an artificial distinction made by the game. That artificial distinction also applies to the way I used the word conjure in the sentence you quoted. In other words, it has nothing to do with keywords overriding each other. A keyword is always placed on spell based on the result it produces. However, some words have double meanings; they have the meaning given to the keyword by the game, and they have the meaning attributed to them via common usage in the English language. Sorry for the confusion. Considering the meaning that that word is often given in D&D, I probably should have used a synonym. In case you plan on asking, when I said it "ceases to be a conjuration" I meant "it ceases to fit into the definition of a conjuration" as its end result now tricks the senses. Anything that tricks the senses is an illusion. Or at least, it should be. I have found one anomly. However, as it is a single anomaly in the face of something that is otherwise the standard fair of distinction, I believe that one power is simply in need of errata.
I would think these would be the higher level Illusion spells.
Summon Monster is a Conjuration.
Mirror Image is not.
Simple.
Summon Monster is a Conjuration. Mirror Image is not. Simple.
Actually, I think of it the other way around.
If it takes 'shadow magic' to be 'quasi-real', then Mirror Image isnt quasi-real. Mirror Image is a strictly subjective sensation without any reality.
Summon Monster is a Conjuration. Mirror Image is not. Simple.
Actually, I think of it the other way around.
If it takes 'shadow magic' to be 'quasi-real', then Mirror Image isnt quasi-real. Mirror Image is a strictly subjective sensation without any reality.
Yea. That might make sense. You know, if there was a single line of text anywhere in the game that said that was true... of course their isn't.
Going off of 3rd edition here. Summon Monster is a Conjuration. Mirror Image is not. Simple.
Actually, I think of it the other way around.
If it takes 'shadow magic' to be 'quasi-real', then Mirror Image isnt quasi-real. Mirror Image is a strictly subjective sensation without any reality.
Yea. That might make sense. You know, if there was a single line of text anywhere in the game that said that was true... of course their isn't.
Dave, you dont know what you are talking about. Do you really not know what the rules of illusion are?
Shadow magic is 'partially real'.
SRD: Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real.
The Mirror Image spell is an illusion, but it isnt a shadow. So, it isnt 'partially real'.
By contrast, Mirror Image is a figment. A figment is a 'false sensation'.
SRD: Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation.
As was said ...
If it takes 'shadow' to be 'partially real', then Mirror Image isnt partially real. Mirror Image is a strictly subjective 'false sensation' without any reality.
If it takes 'shadow magic' to be 'quasi-real', then Mirror Image isnt quasi-real. Mirror Image is a strictly subjective sensation without any reality.
Hey, you know what is neat? In 4e shadow magic has spells that are illusions, and spells that are conjurations. It depends on what the end effect of a spell is. Use magical energy to create an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, and it is a conjuration. Trick the mind or senses, and it is an illusion. I guess 4e shadow magic can create things that are quasi real. Pretty neat, huh?
Wow. 4e has SRD!? Crazy. Oh, wait...
Hey, you know what is neat? In 4e shadow magic has spells that are illusions, and spells that are conjurations. It depends on what the end effect of a spell is. Use magical energy to create an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, and it is a conjuration. Trick the mind or senses, and it is an illusion. I guess 4e shadow magic can create things that are quasi real. Pretty neat, huh?
4e conjurations can create things that are quasi real. It is pretty neat.
A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
It is possible to produce a conjuration which is a hologram.
Dave, do you dispute this?
Wow. 4e has SRD!? Crazy. Oh, wait...
Hey, you know what is neat? In 4e shadow magic has spells that are illusions, and spells that are conjurations. It depends on what the end effect of a spell is. Use magical energy to create an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, and it is a conjuration. Trick the mind or senses, and it is an illusion. I guess 4e shadow magic can create things that are quasi real. Pretty neat, huh?
4e conjurations can create things that are quasi real. It is pretty neat.
Nobody has disputed that. Its pretty neat. But if it deceives the senses, it is an illusion. The rules say so. That is pretty neat too.
A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
It is possible to produce a conjuration which is a hologram.
Dave, do you dispute this?
If it deceives the senses, the rules state it is an illusion. End of story.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
It is possible to produce a conjuration which is a hologram.
Dave, do you dispute this?
A conjuration can be hologram.
Yes or no?
The specific context of a hologram has been discussed to death in this thread. I don't see the point of going over it again. You can reread the thread if you need to. Otherwise, the answer I just gave you is all you are going to get.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
I want you to explicitly say, 'Yes, a conjuration can be a hologram.'
To bad. What you want isn't my problem. I have given you your answer. The answer is: If it deceives the senses, the rules state it is an illusion. End of story.
The specific context of a hologram has been discussed to death in this thread. I don't see the point of going over it again. You can reread the thread if you need to. Otherwise, the answer I just gave you is all you are going to get.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. If you think you see a chair, but in truth you just see a trick of the light, it is an illusion. If you think you see a light, and the phenomenon you witness acts exactly like a light, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
Please answer the question specifically.A hologram is an objectively existing phenomenon.
For the sake of clarity, I pointed out earlier, mass is irrelevant. Just to be glib:
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of light.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of thunder energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of psychic energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of divine energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of arcane energy.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they are made out of nothingness.
Some conjurations dont have mass; they 'warp and reconfigure' interdimensional space.
Because a conjuration can resemble any kind of perceptable objectively existing 'phenomenon', the Rules Compendium updated the definition.
D&D Essentials Rules Compendium, page 117: 'A conjuration power produces a conjuration, which is a creation of magical enegy that resembles a creature, an object, or some other phenomenon'.
A conjuration power can conjure a hologram, which is an objectively existing phenomenon.
It is possible to produce a conjuration which is a hologram.
Dave, do you dispute this?
A conjuration can be hologram.
Yes or no?If ...I want you to explicitly say, 'Yes, a conjuration can be a hologram.'To bad. What you want isn't my problem. I have given you your answer. The answer is: If ...
Your refusal to answer the question is telling.
Of course, a conjuration can be a hologram.
You know, that truth that you refuse to explicitly admit, is a problem that your argument ignores.
The answer is: If it deceives the senses, the rules state it is an illusion. End of story.
The specific context of a hologram has been discussed to death in this thread. I don't see the point of going over it again. You can reread the thread if you need to. Otherwise, the answer I just gave you is all you are going to get.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. If you think you see a chair, but in truth you just see a trick of the light, it is an illusion. If you think you see a light, and the phenomenon you witness acts exactly like a light, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
Does a "hologram" produce an image image of a creature, object, or phenomenon, which appears to be real, without actually producing any other aspects of that creature, object, or phenomenon? If so, the hologram tricks the senses, and it cannot be a conjuration. Does a hologram produce an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, and can be experiences in every possible way as if it really was that creature, object, or phenomenon? Can a hologram of a chair be touched, and sat in? If so, a hologram is a conjuration. I will let you figure out what a hologram actually is for yourself.
The end result dictates the distinction created via the keywords. The method by which the end result is achieved is meaningless, at least in regards to the keywords.
You still refuse to answer the question!
Yes or no?
A conjuration can be a hologram.
The truth here, obviously, has huge implications for your entire argument. It would be nice to have some clarity from you.
Please, answer the question that was asked:
Yes or no?
A conjuration can be a hologram.
Dave, you are answering the question like a politician.
You still refuse to answer the question!
Yes or no?
A conjuration can be a hologram.
The truth here, obviously, has huge implications for your entire argument. It would be nice to have some clarity.
Please, answer the question that was asked:
Yes or no?
A conjuration can be a hologram.
Does a "hologram" produce an image image of a creature, object, or phenomenon, which appears to be real, without actually producing any other aspects of that creature, object, or phenomenon? If so, the hologram tricks the senses, and it cannot be a conjuration. Does a hologram produce an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, and can be experienced in every possible way as if it really was that creature, object, or phenomenon? Can a hologram of a chair be touched, and sat in? If so, a hologram is a conjuration.
A hologram is a process driven term. The illusion and conjuration keywords in the D&D game are not. They are result driven terms. However, many illusion powers produce effects that are strikingly similar to effects that can be produced by holograms today.
3E Illusions were divided into five categories: figment, glamer, pattern, phantasm, and shadow. Of those, only two types - pattern and phantasm - were associated with the Mind-Affecting keyword, as noted by the presence of that keyword in illusion spells of those categories.
Figments were NOT Mind-Affecting, as the rest of the description (past the first sentence that you quoted) made abundantly clear. This included Mirror Image, Illusory Wall, and other 'hologram'-themed powers. They were all Illusion (figment), not Mind-Affecting, and not Conjuration.
Likewise, Invisibility (a glamer) was not Mind-Affecting, and people incorrectly asserting that it was even prompted one of the designers to write a rant about it ( www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/inv... ).
The same principle holds true in 4E: illusion powers are only mind-affecting if they state they are, and as a general rule, only the Psychic keyword actually applies that designation.
Haldrik, you're basing your entire position.
I am pointing out, conjurations can be holograms.
The false premise that Illusion and Mind-Affecting are synonymous, which simply isn't true.
I agree. Illusion and mind-affecting arent synonymous. Charm and fear are also mind-affecting, but arent illusion.
3E Illusions were divided into five categories: figment, glamer, pattern, phantasm, and shadow. Of those, only two types - pattern and phantasm - were associated with the Mind-Affecting keyword, as noted by the presence of that keyword in illusion spells of those categories.
In both 4e and 3e, phantasm satisfies the definition of 'deceive the mind'.
Figments were NOT Mind-Affecting.
In 3e a figment is a 'false sensation'. In both 4e and 3e, false sensation satisfies the definition of 'deceive the senses'.
This included Mirror Image, Illusory Wall, and other 'hologram'-themed powers. They were all Illusion (figment), not Mind-Affecting, and not Conjuration.
All of these 3e spells are 'false sensations' (figment).
The illusions arent shadow, thus they arent even 'partially real'. They have no reality. They are merely a 'sensation'.
I am pointing out, conjurations can be holograms.
Except, of course, that every "hologram-like" spell in the game has the illusion keyword...
I agree. Illusion and mind-affecting arent synonymous. Charm and fear are also mind-affecting, but arent illusion.
And the wizard's invisibility spells don't affect the mind, they bend light.
In both 4e and 3e, phantasm satisfies the definition of 'deceive the mind'.
Yea. We are aware. ND specifically said that phantasm is associated with the Mind-Affecting keyword. It is one of only two (out of five) types of illusions that are. Guess what that means though? Three out of five types of illusions do not affect the mind. All this is in regards to 3e, of course.
In 3e a figment is a 'false sensation'. In both 4e and 3e, false sensation satisfies the definition of 'deceive the senses'.
Guess what is not synonymous with "deceives the mind." If you guessed "deceives the senses" you are correct. As ND noted, figments were not Mind-Affecting abilities.
All of these 3e spells are 'false sensations' (figment).
Guess what else all of those spells do? If you guessed "alter light" you are correct. As Sean K. Reynolds explicitly wrote, invisibility doesn't deceive the mind, it deceives the senses (by bending light).
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.
I bolded the relevant part.
-----
So the 3E tradition not support Haldrik's assertion that illusions must directly manipulate a target's faculties to create false sensations. Nothing in the 4E definition supports this notion either.
'It is not a personalized mental impression'. One could even argue, it is still a 'mental impression' but not a personalized one. But the point is, the figment itself is a 'false sensation'.
This sensation lacks reality.
By distinguishing between 'shadow' and other kinds of illusion, the 3e tradition distinguishes between shadow that is at least 'partially real' (such as shadow conjurations), and other kinds of illusion that are entirely unreal.
Light objectively exists.
When light hits the cone-cells of the eye, the sensation of vision is true and real.
Light is real.
Light objectively exists.
When light hits the cone-cells of the eye, the sensation of vision is true and real.
And if that sensation causes one to percieve a chair that isn't actually there, that sensation tricks the senses; in that case, if that sensation is supernatural in origin, according to the rules of D&D, it is called an illusion. The designers of D&D have said this themselves. Sean K. Reynolds has said that invisibility bends light, it is not a mental effect, and it is an illusion.
Just because light is real, and light objectively exists, that does not mean it cannot be used to deceive the senses. Moreover, many illusions objectively exist. Everyone who perceives them percieve the exact same image; the sensation perceived is thus objective. The sensation is real. It is simply that the sensation also deceives the senses into believing that the sensation is indicative of something other than the truth. Instead of seeing light, one sees a chair. The chair, however, does not exist.
A figment is a superficial 'sensation'. Each creature experiences the same 'false sensation'.
'It is not a personalized mental impression'. One could even argue, it is still a 'mental impression' but not a personalized one. But the point is, the figment itself is a 'false sensation'.
This sensation lacks reality.
False. One could not argue that it is still a mental impression. In 3e figments did not have the mind affecting keyword. Thus, they are not mental impressions in 3e. In 4e there is not a single line of text that says that the spells which act as the spiritual successors of the figments exist only in one's mind. Your assertion lacks textual proof. Indeed, both 3e and 4e work on a very different set of assumptions than the ones you are trying to push in this thread.
I didn't refuse to answer your question.The answer is: If it deceives the senses, the rules state it is an illusion. End of story.
The specific context of a hologram has been discussed to death in this thread. I don't see the point of going over it again. You can reread the thread if you need to. Otherwise, the answer I just gave you is all you are going to get.
Repeat after me; magical keywords are result driven distinctions, not process driven distinctions. If the result tricks the mind or senses, it is an illusion. If the result resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, without tricking the senses, it is a conjuration. If you think you see a chair, but in truth you just see a trick of the light, it is an illusion. If you think you see a light, and the phenomenon you witness acts exactly like a light, it is a conjuration. Get the difference yet?
Does a "hologram" produce an image image of a creature, object, or phenomenon, which appears to be real, without actually producing any other aspects of that creature, object, or phenomenon? If so, the hologram tricks the senses, and it cannot be a conjuration. Does a hologram produce an effect that resembles a creature, object, or phenomenon, and can be experiences in every possible way as if it really was that creature, object, or phenomenon? Can a hologram of a chair be touched, and sat in? If so, a hologram is a conjuration. I will let you figure out what a hologram actually is for yourself.
The end result dictates the distinction created via the keywords. The method by which the end result is achieved is meaningless, at least in regards to the keywords.
You say: 'Can a hologram of a chair be touched, and sat in? If so, a hologram is a conjuration.'
First of all, you *can* sit in an illusion of a chair that is made out of 3e shadow energy.
So by your own explanation, an illusion that is 'partially real' that you can sit in actually is a 'conjuration'.
Namely 'partially real' effects use the 4e keyword, conjuration.
Regardless, neither 3E Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Shadow) spells are Mind-Affecting.
3E Illusion (Shadow) spells are a separate category from Illusion (Figment) spells, and involve creating partially-real materials or effects out of shadowstuff. If you are creating a chair out of that then it is not a hologram.
So, you seem to agree, when converting a 3e 'shadow spell' into 4e, it is a 'conjuration power'?
Regardless, neither 3E Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Shadow) spells are Mind-Affecting.
Affecting the mind isnt the same thing as affecting the senses. Figments are 'false sensations' that affect the senses yet are completely unreal (not even 'partially real').
Regardless, it has already been well-established that Illusion powers do not, in either 3E or 4E, inherently involve directly acting on the mind or senses of a creature (which in 3E was designated as Mind-Affecting in either case - there was no Senses-Affecting keyword). This you refuse to acknowledge no matter how often it is pointed out, and I'm not willing to keep pursuing your shifting goalposts any longer.
So, you seem to agree, when converting a 3e 'shadow spell' into 4e, it is a 'conjuration power'?
The Shadow Monster series might because they behave like other Conjuration-keyword spells.
Good. A 3e 'shadow conjuration' is indeed a 4e 'conjuration'.
Regardless, it has already been well-established that ...
I am the only one who bothers to 'well establish' anything in this thread. I appreciate any substantive discussion on this matter.
Illusion powers do not, in either 3E or 4E, inherently involve directly acting on the mind or senses of a creature (which in 3E was designated as Mind-Affecting in either case - there was no Senses-Affecting keyword.
Im sure you meant to say, certain kinds of illusion obviously 'involve directly acting on the mind', especially phantasm, hence its 'mind-affecting' descriptor.
In fact, there is a 'sense affecting' descriptor. Its called a 'figment'. The definition of a figment is a 'false sensation'.
This you refuse to acknowledge no matter how often it is pointed out, and I'm not willing to keep pursuing your shifting goalposts any longer.
Refuse to acknowledge? You realize what you said was factually wrong? Rather, a phantasm does have a mind-affecting discriptor.
You refuse to acknowledge - no matter how often it is pointed out - the definition of a 'figment' is a 'false sensation'.
Regarding my 'goalposts'. You will see them firmly planted in the very first post of this thread. Illusion ≠ conjuration. It is that simple. If it is an objectively existing phenomenon, then it is a conjuration and isnt an illusion. An object that is made out of 3e shadow energy is a 'conjuration'. Extremely secure goalposts.
It is certain individuals who keep moving the goalposts. First by *wrongly* insisting that a conjuration must be substantial. Then by *wrongly* insisting a figment can be 'partially real' by manipulating real light. And so on with several failed arguments. There has been zero 'established' to show a figment is in fact completely or even partially real.
"So, for fun, I'd like to play his game. Furthering Cyber-Dave's argument philosophically, by stating that everything a wizard does should have both the conjuration and illusion keywords (and in fact, all things might actually fall under these categories). As we do not know how magic (or even reality) really works, all things that a wizard does can be said to affect the mind or senses 'tricking' it into seeing, hearing, feeling, or otherwise sensing the same things as any other caught in the effect. Since we (Haldrik), aren't actually recognizing the purpose of keywords, I proclaim all wizardry to be illusory, as it cannot be explained reasonably (if for no other reason than the fact that this magic only exists on paper, and therefore cannot be scientifically examined) and is therefore a shared hallucination of the targets."
"On top of that, by definition of conjuration (or by Haldrik's definition at the very least), all magic is manipulation of energy, even that which effects the mind or senses, and therefore, is a conjuration."
"I proclaim my words to be truth, because, no one can argue against them with sucstantial proof which can be refuted using the platform I am arguing from (which is completely philosophical and theoretical)."
"There, the argument has been won in the only way that one can win an argument with someone like Haldrik. Cyber-Dave, you've given your, 'and this is the last word' speech a couple times now, take your own advice. I find, especially on the internet, you have to use that sort of argument with finality or you will always lose. The only way to win here is to let him believe he won by virtue of the fact that you don't respond, and realize how that victory, is hollow. You will win to the only person with whom it matters, yourself."
You made up your own houserules and forgot (or never realized) they were houserules.
You cant 'prove Haldriks definitions wrong' because they are what the rules actually say.
You made up your own houserules and forgot (or never realized) they were houserules.
You're the only one doing that Haldrik. The actual rules from the books have been quoted to you repeatedly, and you still houserule them to fit your own preconceptions.
I am the only one who bothers to 'well establish' anything in this thread.
The only thing you have "well established" in this thread is your inability to listen to reason. We have provided quotes from two editions of the game, a game designer who worked on 3e who explicitly says that illusion spells like invisibility work by bending light, pointed out that your claims are not supported by a single line of text in any of the books, pointed out how you are being misleading with your quotes by providing the rest of the paragraph quoted, which includes lines of text which (virtually) explicitly state that the keywords you are using do not mean what you are claiming they mean, and explained to you that keywords are result driven terms not process driven terms, yet you still seem to be unable to grasp the basic principles of this conversation (let alone what has and hasn't been "well established"). The only one "making up houserules," and not realizing that they have been doing so, is you...
By the way, yes, a chair that both feels like and looks like a chair, woven out of shadow stuff, is a conjuration. However, a chair that doesn't feel like a chair, that exists only as an image, but that is also woven out of shadow stuff, is an illusion. Keywords are result driven, not process driven. This is why assassins have both conjuration and illusion keyword powers amongst the options they can choose, all of which are flavored as being a form of shadow magic (in terms of process).
By the way, yes, a chair that both feels like and looks like a chair, woven out of shadow stuff, is a conjuration. However, a chair that doesn't feel like a chair, that exists only as an image, but that is also woven out of shadow stuff, is an illusion. Keywords are result driven, not process driven. This is why assassins have both conjuration and illusion keyword powers amongst the options they can choose, all of which are flavored as being a form of shadow magic (in terms of process).
Cyber-Dave said: 'A chair that both feels like and looks like a chair, woven out of shadow stuff, is a conjuration.'
A tactile object that is made out of magical energy (for example, shadow energy) uses the 4e keyword, conjuration.
I will respond to this and other points later.
No, Illusions are not Conjurations, when a particular spell is a conjuration, it will say so, Illusion or not.
Your putting to much thought into this, making up your own fluff and then stating it as fact.
Applying a purely objective viewpoint to the 1e definition, shadow magic makes an illusion 'quasi-real'. If it is partially real then it is some kind of conjuration or evocation. However, I think even 1e treated shadow magic as its own special kind of conjuration/evocation that was a form of the illusion school.
However, it doesn't follow that shadow needs to be defined as a conjuration in 4e since the term has specific game mechanics that vary depending on the spell.
Any spell that conjures shadow monsters that exist for more than one round, occupy a space, and can be moved will have the shadow and conjuration keywords. Spells that simply mimic effects that attack and do damage will have the psychic and shadow keyword. Technically, none of the spells need have the illusion keyword. If we look at assassin hexes and the umbriri pp powers, this should give us an idea how 4e is likely to deal with such things.
It's possible to introduce a feat that adds the shadow descriptor to illusion spells so that they can benefit from shadow feats e.g. for extra damage by thematically weaving a bit of shadow into normal illusion spells. There are lots of ways to cross pollenate.
Hmmm - can't be bothered to read back over the thread but I'll pitch in as I'm on hold and I'm bored.
Applying a purely objective viewpoint to the 1e definition, shadow magic makes an illusion 'quasi-real'. If it is partially real then it is some kind of conjuration or evocation. However, I think even 1e treated shadow magic as its own special kind of conjuration/evocation that was a form of the illusion school.
However, it doesn't follow that shadow needs to be defined as a conjuration in 4e since the term has specific game mechanics that vary depending on the spell.
Any spell that conjures shadow monsters that exist for more than one round, occupy a space, and can be moved will have the shadow and conjuration keywords. Spells that simply mimic effects that attack and do damage will have the psychic and shadow keyword. Technically, none of the spells need have the illusion keyword. If we look at assassin hexes and the umbriri pp powers, this should give us an idea how 4e is likely to deal with such things.
It's possible to introduce a feat that adds the shadow descriptor to illusion spells so that they can benefit from shadow feats e.g. for extra damage by thematically weaving a bit of shadow into normal illusion spells. There are lots of ways to cross pollenate.
A reasonable post. However, it should be noted that 4e has already found one way to cross pollinate. Shadow magic is defined by powers of the shadow power source. Conjuration shadow magic evokes an effect that has all the same sensory input as the thing it summons. Illusion shadow magic, such as fortress of shadows, or that new assassin illusion that creates a decoy image of some humanoid, deceives the senses by weaving an image out of shadows (that lacks the same sensory input as what the image appears to be); it pretty much creates a hologram.
There could be a feat, class feature, or PP feature called Shadow Magic/conjuration/evocation that allows another keyword to be added to certain shadow powers similar to elemental admixture so you can have your shadow magic fireball etc. In fact, this kind of mechanic might work weill with Essentials type builds?
Yes but in game terms a spell has the conjuration keyword if it has the characteristics of a conjuration whether the source is arcane, divine, or shadow. A visually confusing spell does not need the illusion keyword if it has the shadow keyword and if they decide to add it, it will only be for the mechanical effect e.g. gnome feats that certain characters can obtain. Damaging spells could have the psychic keyword but even that isn't a requirement mechanically.
There could be a feat, class feature, or PP feature called Shadow Magic/conjuration/evocation that allows another keyword to be added to certain shadow powers similar to elemental admixture so you can have your shadow magic fireball etc. In fact, this kind of mechanic might work weill with Essentials type builds?
Yup. None of that is wrong. And I am not arguing with you. I am just noting that up to now they have not defined shadow magic as a keyword but rather as a power source. Meanwhile, both conjuration and illusion keyword shadowmagic spells (or hexes) exist.
Assassin Shadow: Encounter
Arcane, Conjuration, Shadow, WeaponConcealing Umbra: Encounter
Arcane, Illusion, ShadowShadowed Psyche: Daily
Arcane, Charm, Reliable, Shadow, WeaponStill, it seems unlikely that the same word would be used for a power source and damage keyword. Most likely shadow is just the power source. I don't think we'll be seeing monsters with Resist: Shadow 10 for example. The keywords will remain psychic, fire, lightning etc depending on the type of hex conjured.
Ah ok I'm with you. Umbriri is an arcane PP that has the shadow keyword its powers if that helps.
Assassin Shadow: Encounter • Arcane, Conjuration, Shadow, Weapon
Concealing Umbra: Encounter • Arcane, Illusion, Shadow
Shadowed Psyche: Daily • Arcane, Charm, Reliable, Shadow, Weapon
Still, it seems unlikely that the same word would be used for a power source and damage keyword. Most likely shadow is just the power source. I don't think we'll be seeing monsters with Resist: Shadow 10 for example. The keywords will remain psychic, fire, lightning etc depending on the type of hex conjured.
Your noting the Umbriri path is relevant.
In sum, the Umbriri powers demonstrate how an illusion-flavor power doesnt need to use the illusion effect type keyword.
The Umbriri powers use both arcane and shadow as the power sources.
The Shadowed Psyche power has a flavor text that seems to describe an illusion. It deceives the 'senses' and apparently the mind too via mental phantasms - referring explicitly to 'phantasm', the 3e mind-affecting sub-school of illusion. Yet despite these explicit references to illusion flavor, this power lacks the illusion keyword. Instead it uses the charm effect type keyword and the domination condition type.
'You veil your enemy’s senses in shadowy phantasms. Your foe strikes at imaginary opponents and moves as a puppet on your strings.'
It has illusion flavor, but it doesnt use the illusion keyword. It gains its keywords from the actual mechanics of the effect, in this case the domination condition. Whether or not it has illusion flavor is insignificant.
The Assassin Shadow power likewise has a flavor text that describes what 3e would probably call the 'shadow' sub-school of illusion. Yet, here in the 4e nomenclature, Assassin Shadow is creation of magical energy that resembles you, thus uses the conjuration effect type keyword and lacks the illusion effect type keyword.
'As you strike, shadows congeal into a solid figure at your foe’s flank. The silhouette looks like you, only its features are shrouded in blackness, and its sword is made of inky gloom.'
Basically, 'illusions' dont need to use the illusion keyword.