Sure here are some, all from Silent Image;
1. Bells falling and striking a stone floor (without noise)
2. A skunk spraying (without odor)
3. A scarf over a restrained target's eyes (without texture/touch)
4. A bonfire (without heat)
What's believable changes a LOT in a fantasy setting.
If conjuring an actual wall of fire is something wizards can do, then an illusionary wall of fire is also going to be believable.
If summoning an earth elemental is possible, then I may not stick around to see if 'it's real'.
To be sure, illusions will work more poorly against an enemy with big ranks in spell craft. That makes sense to me.
What do you say to someone who thinks they've gone below 0 hit points in that situation? Proof that the illusions aren't real?
Pretty much, yes. Though I'd play it for laughs in a situation like that. : D
Makes sense (although, it's only ~3 seconds dealing with it). It's easier when the DM uses illusions (especially when he's mixing them in with real threats) on the players because he can describe exactly what everyone sees, and the players can work off of that. Most of the problems occur when the DM hears explicitly that the player is using an image spell.
Nah, that's the kind of thing the GM has to deal with all the time. You pretty much have to be able to compartmentalize to do the job, since you're telling a story from zillions of NPC perspectives while simultaneously accounting for and ignoring all the relevant information about the PCs. A good DM should have no trouble adjudicating an illusion fairly (i.e., it works the same for PCs and NPCs alike) regardless of their overall take on how illusion works.
As a side note, if someone puts his hand through an illusionary wall, does he automatically disbelieve, or does he make a save, and failure means that he thinks his hand gets stopped?
Unless the PC was unbelievably credulous, I'd call it proof. Any stricter requirements and we be waxing philosophical about Plato's cave.
What's believable changes a LOT in a fantasy setting.
If conjuring an actual wall of fire is something wizards can do, then an illusionary wall of fire is also going to be believable.
If summoning an earth elemental is possible, then I may not stick around to see if 'it's real'.
To be sure, illusions will work more poorly against an enemy with big ranks in spell craft. That makes sense to me.
What you say is true, which is why individual character perspective must be accounted for.
|
Sure here are some, all from Silent Image;
1. Bells falling and striking a stone floor (without noise)
2. A skunk spraying (without odor)
3. A scarf over a restrained target's eyes (without texture/touch)
4. A bonfire (without heat)
1. Easily doable with bells falling down in a silence spell
2. Will save because the illusion (in this case the spray) is interacting with the target)3. Will save because the illusion (in this case the scarf) is interacting with the target)
4. Continual flame
On the other hand, in a fantasy setting the characters know that what they are seeing could be an illusion.
Sure here are some, all from Silent Image;
1. Bells falling and striking a stone floor (without noise)
2. A skunk spraying (without odor)
3. A scarf over a restrained target's eyes (without texture/touch)
4. A bonfire (without heat)1. Easily doable with bells falling down in a silence spell
2. Will save because the illusion (in this case the spray) is interacting with the target)
3. Will save because the illusion (in this case the scarf) is interacting with the target)
4. Continual flame
Re #1: The fact that it is possible to reproduce via magic does not mean that (a) the observer will know that, or that (b) the observer would even think of that as a possibility given its extreme unlikeliness.
#2 and #3 are precisely my point. It has been argued that, apart from obvious proof, any interaction capable of providing a Will save should require at least a move action. Getting sprayed by a skunk is a non-action. : D
#4 I agree with, unless the campaign is really low magic or the observer is from a magic-less backwater.
Sure here are some, all from Silent Image;
1. Bells falling and striking a stone floor (without noise)
2. A skunk spraying (without odor)
3. A scarf over a restrained target's eyes (without texture/touch)
4. A bonfire (without heat)1. Easily doable with bells falling down in a silence spell
2. Will save because the illusion (in this case the spray) is interacting with the target)
3. Will save because the illusion (in this case the scarf) is interacting with the target)
4. Continual flame
This is why I was hesitant to reply, you can do almost anything with magic but that does not mean that no one will disbelieve illusions. I would argue that anyone that knows about the silence spell would know that illusions exist in general and may even be more likely to disbelieve something that seems like an illusion. IMO this is not a fruitful argument to make.
Also, according to the "rules of the game" articles, interacting is equivalent to a move action. By that reading an illusion of a skunk spraying you is not an interaction, let alone a skunk spraying in general. Likewise for the scarf. Finally, a bonfire is much brighter than a torch so you cannot use continual flame in this way. Alternately replace "bonfire" with "fire elemental."
Overall my point is that the lower level figments have restrictions on them and those restrictions should be real. Saying that no one notices that your Silent Image of a dragon makes no noise, smell, or heat is a little silly. Saying that people do notice that your dragon makes no noise, smell, or heat but don't disbelieve because *magic exists* seems even sillier.
|
|
I think 'obviously wrong' is stuff like an illusion of a good friend of yours, when you know that friend to have a recent scar, different colored eyes, a different accent, and be left handed and the illusion has none of those.
An 'obviously wrong' illusion might be a villain cleric who is casting spells using the wrong holy symbol.
An 'obviously wrong' illusion of a door that had been busted open by a monster, but is missing a mark you carved into the door earlier in the day.
So, every time a person sees an impersonation of his friend, the response is "It must be an illusion!", as opposed to "Someone is impersonating my friend!"?
A villain cleric displaying a bogus focus as he casts a spell could be casting it from a magic item on his person.The door could have been mended in between you marking it and it being destroyed.
#2 and #3 are precisely my point. It has been argued that, apart from obvious proof, any interaction capable of providing a Will save should require at least a move action. Getting sprayed by a skunk is a non-action. : D
Here's the relevant section from the PRD
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
So, at the very least, in these cases, the illusion is directly interacting with the target and therefore grants a saving throw.
I'm not saying that characters can't look at a dragon that makes no noise/smell/sound, or a person who doesn't look right and not think that it's an illusion. However, it's not revealed to be one (resulting in translucency) without a saving throw that requires careful study / interaction, and someone will have to ignore it at his own risk.
Tell the character what he sees, let the character make his own conclusion about what happened. Don't reveal it to be an illusion until he decides to look at it more closely or interacts with it.
#2 and #3 are precisely my point. It has been argued that, apart from obvious proof, any interaction capable of providing a Will save should require at least a move action. Getting sprayed by a skunk is a non-action. : D
#4 I agree with, unless the campaign is really low magic or the observer is from a magic-less backwater.
Here's the relevant section from the PRD
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
So, at the very least, in these cases, the illusion is directly interacting with the target and therefore grants a saving throw.
I'm not saying that characters can't look at a dragon that makes no noise, smell, or sound and not think that it's an illusion. However, it's not revealed to be one (resulting in translucency) without a saving throw that requires careful study / interaction.
... I have already stated that my viewpoint is not supported by RAW. I simply think RAW in this case is silly and threatens the players' suspension of disbelief.
In any case, even if they don't take a round of careful study, I see no problem with them gambling on it and acting normally. They'll simply see a dragon instead of a translucent aura. PCs do this all the time when they suspect something is an illusion but can't afford to take an action to make sure. This is an interpretation I think we both agree on. But I have no problem going ahead and allowing the saving throw when the illusion is fundamentally flawed on the level of a heatless fire elemental at melee range.
|
|
So, every time a person sees an impersonation of his friend, the response is "It must be an illusion!", as opposed to "Someone is impersonating my friend!"?A skilled disguise artist wouldn't make such obvious mistakes. An unskiled disguise artist wouldn't be confused with an illusion (badly applied makeup would look different than a badly designed illusion).
What about the wizard who casts disguise self without complete information? Everything looks genuine, but he got his information wrong. Disguise Self doesn't allow a saving throw, and when the observer beats the disguise check, all he knows is that the impersonator probably isn't who he is impersonating. The spell doesn't disappear. Of course, if it was actually an illusion, someone spending more time than a glance observing will get the saving throw anyway.
A villain cleric displaying a bogus focus as he casts a spell could be casting it from a magic item on his person.Unless its a trickster deity, I would never allow this.
Its like a Christian praying over someone while holding on to a Muslim star and crescent in religious ferver.
Who says it was actually a cleric? Anyone can use magic items to pretend to be something they aren't with appropriate bluff/sleight of hand/knowledge checks. If the observer "beats those rolls", then he knows something is wrong. If he decides to look for anything else that seems amiss about his person, take a move action, and bam! Out of nowhere he gets a disbelief save (assuming it actually was an illusion).
Unlikely since the caster would have to have the spell prepared and that spell just isn't needed often enough to keep ready.
The door could have been mended in between you marking it and it being destroyed.
Really? Just because it's unlikely that someone has a specific 0 level (or any level) spell prepared is causation for automatic disbelief saves?
I'm going to stop here, and just say that before allowing automatic disbelief saves, think hard as to how flawed the illusion really is.
What do you say to someone who thinks they've gone below 0 hit points in that situation? Proof that the illusions aren't real?
Just don't describe them as hp damage. :)