01-18-2018, 07:40 AM
I'm pretty sure illusion (as the big school) can create light.
What's more I can't see why even a figment couldn't create light.
So patterns are like figments, except also mind-affecting. Nowhere mentioning the difference of being able to create lights. Now let's check a random pattern spell.
As long as this does not open a loophole (e.g., you could replace Continual Flame with a first level illusion or a cantrip, and maybe it even worked waaaay better) I would say it's possible.
Now that I'm writing this it occurred to me that the opposite is also an interesting question: can you cover a continual flame with a figment of a barrel, effectively suppressing a 2nd level spell? I think you can, since you can do the same by dropping a nonmagical cloak over the light source. Plus, the cloak does not need concentration to maintain
Concerning my past ruling and briefly summarising that conversation; my wording above (like interaction means automatically successful disbelief) was incorrect. It is proof that means automatic disbelief. What we discussed in that conversation is the fine line between the two terms. Sadly, PHB wording is ambiguous and Skip Williams' article to clarify actually leaves no gap for the save. What he wrote effectively means "you either interact and then you have proof and thus no save needed, or you don't interact and thus no save allowed."
On the same note, and I think you are right about the caster and I felt something was fishy here. The caster can see through the figment but not because she's the caster; more because she knows for a fact that it is an illusion (i.e. it is proven to her). On the other hand, if she had some mental condition, like short-term amnesia, so that by the time she'd finished the spell she'd forgotten about what she'd just done, then she would have no proof, thus, not even a chance to save until she interacted with the figment.
The only thing to be clarified is whether Shanna could move the object* along so that the mantises couldn't reach it with their bite attacks. On one hand it's a question of mental agility, sense of balance, your proficiency in your art of magic, and whatnot, raising the question whether this move is continuous (in which case concentrating on the spell should be a full round action, I guess) or only done on the caster's turn. On the other hand, the spell specifically states that the object has AC 10 plus size modifier. If it has an AC but you can simply move it along with concentration so that it dodges all attacks then doesn't it have a Dodge bonus of plus infinity?
Bottom line, I feel I subconsciously did the right thing when rolling Will saves for the critters.
*object: yes, it's a single object: two barrels interlocked by a chain, to reflect the spell description. I made this alteration to Shanna's description to avoid the hassle of having her make up a single object that does the trick (splitting hairs, really. no effect here.)
What's more I can't see why even a figment couldn't create light.
Quote:Pattern
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
So patterns are like figments, except also mind-affecting. Nowhere mentioning the difference of being able to create lights. Now let's check a random pattern spell.
Quote:Scintillating Pattern
Illusion (Pattern) [Mind-Affecting]
...
Effect: Colorful lights in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Hypnotic Pattern
Illusion (Pattern) [Mind-Affecting]
...
Effect: Colorful lights in a 10-ft.-radius spread
As long as this does not open a loophole (e.g., you could replace Continual Flame with a first level illusion or a cantrip, and maybe it even worked waaaay better) I would say it's possible.
Now that I'm writing this it occurred to me that the opposite is also an interesting question: can you cover a continual flame with a figment of a barrel, effectively suppressing a 2nd level spell? I think you can, since you can do the same by dropping a nonmagical cloak over the light source. Plus, the cloak does not need concentration to maintain
Concerning my past ruling and briefly summarising that conversation; my wording above (like interaction means automatically successful disbelief) was incorrect. It is proof that means automatic disbelief. What we discussed in that conversation is the fine line between the two terms. Sadly, PHB wording is ambiguous and Skip Williams' article to clarify actually leaves no gap for the save. What he wrote effectively means "you either interact and then you have proof and thus no save needed, or you don't interact and thus no save allowed."
On the same note, and I think you are right about the caster and I felt something was fishy here. The caster can see through the figment but not because she's the caster; more because she knows for a fact that it is an illusion (i.e. it is proven to her). On the other hand, if she had some mental condition, like short-term amnesia, so that by the time she'd finished the spell she'd forgotten about what she'd just done, then she would have no proof, thus, not even a chance to save until she interacted with the figment.
The only thing to be clarified is whether Shanna could move the object* along so that the mantises couldn't reach it with their bite attacks. On one hand it's a question of mental agility, sense of balance, your proficiency in your art of magic, and whatnot, raising the question whether this move is continuous (in which case concentrating on the spell should be a full round action, I guess) or only done on the caster's turn. On the other hand, the spell specifically states that the object has AC 10 plus size modifier. If it has an AC but you can simply move it along with concentration so that it dodges all attacks then doesn't it have a Dodge bonus of plus infinity?
Bottom line, I feel I subconsciously did the right thing when rolling Will saves for the critters.
*object: yes, it's a single object: two barrels interlocked by a chain, to reflect the spell description. I made this alteration to Shanna's description to avoid the hassle of having her make up a single object that does the trick (splitting hairs, really. no effect here.)
