Talk:Book of Gears (3.5e Sourcebook)/Magic
From D&D Wiki
 Unperceived Figments
I've been searching all over for an answer to something, and even though this exhaustive analysis of illusions provides useful insight, it doesn't answer my question. Please help if you can.
Nowhere have I been able to find anything that discusses the question about whether someone should get a will disbelief save on interaction if they didn't know the illusion was there in the first place.
For example, say in the real world I blindfold you (assume the blindfold blocks all visible light), put a line segment of tape on the floor somewhere in the room (assume I do this silently), and then lead you randomly around the room. Would you be able to tell me (without taking the blindfold off) whether you walked over the line of tape? Of course not.
Now let's put this same situation in D&D: Say I blindfold a character (assume the blindfold blocks out all light, and no effects are in play that would allow the character to be able see through the blindfold), create a silent image of a wall (and not tell him where it is) somewhere in the room, and then lead the character randomly around the room. Assuming the character doesn't have extrasensory perceptions to navigate while blind, would the character (while blindfolded) be able to tell me whether they walked through my illusionary wall? Again, I would think not. So why on earth if they did walk through my wall (and it obviously didn't react, since it's a wall) should they be able to see through my illusionary wall once I take the blindfold off? It doesn't make any sense to me!
If it doesn't make any sense to you either, consider this logical extension, the real reason I'm even asking all this: Say I blindfold the character and create a silent image around them of a massive completely opaque block of liquid black ink and I don't tell him about the silent image at all. As I've interpreted the rules, figments are implied to have volume (albeit insubstantial volume) rather than exist as illusionary shells around empty space (like a balloon). This liquid ink the character is completely submerged in if it were real ink would cover up the character's eyes if they didn't have the blindfold on. However, since silent image is purely visual, and the illusion doesn't have real ink's liquid density, if you took the blindfold off while the character was inside an illusionary ink block, why would the character have any reason to believe anything other than the far more reasonable possibility that the lights are simply out?
If that all makes sense to you, here's food for thought: Regardless of whether the character has a mundane torch or a magical one, either way, they wouldn't be able to see anything while inside this ink block because the character's eyes are covered up by the ink. If it's a mundane torch, they are more likely to believe that the reason their heat-giving torch isn't lighting up the area is because of the likely possibility that they're dealing with "magical darkness". If it's a magical torch, they'd be suspicious of the fact that turning on their magical torch doesn't do anything, but this can be explained by the more likely possibility that since magical light has to be above the level of the magical darkness to dispel it... that their magical light just isn't powerful enough.
In short, I believe this is indistinguishable from extremely high level magical darkness for most common situations.
--Maginomicon 06:57, 27 February 2011 (MST)