Spellcraft giving a +4 bonus to will saves?

[Xavier319]

For illusions and most importantly shadow conjuration or shadow evocation. If they see you cast it and succeed at their spellcraft check, and identify it as a shadow spell or an illusion, do they get a +4 to their save? That seems like a really heavy penalty to illusions.

I know about the secret signs feat, sadly it ONLY works with spells that have somatic components only, so not most illusions.

[seebs]

I've never seen anyone give a +4 bonus to saves. Where are you getting that?

[Diego Rossi]

seebs wrote:

I've never seen anyone give a +4 bonus to saves. Where are you getting that?

Here, I think.

PRD wrote:

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.

It can be interpreted in a even worse (for the caster) way: the guy that did his spellcraft check know that the spell is an illusion, so, if you take the bolded part verbatim, he don't need to make a saving throw, he is automatically successful at it.

[Xavier319]

aah i screwed up. you have to disbelieve it FIRST, then tell others, THEN the get the +4. Thanks for making me read it again. i'm a dummy.

[Xavier319]

well, making a spellcraft check is not 'proof'. you could have failed. you dont know if you failed the check or not. there are also many ways to disguise spellcraft checks. making the check only gives you a suspicion it is an illusion, which will make you approach it, study it, not assume it's real. but it's not proof. proof is sticking your arm through an illusory wall.

[Starglim]

Xavier319 wrote:

well, making a spellcraft check is not 'proof'. you could have failed. you dont know if you failed the check or not.

If you make your Spellcraft check, you know what spell your opponent cast and if you saw the effect appear at that time, you have proof that that thing is an illusion (it's still possible not to have proof, but to have suspicion, if you know what the spell was but not exactly what it created).

If you fail your Spellcraft check, you don't know what spell he cast. Failing a Spellcraft check, without other effects in play, can't falsely tell you that a) it's not an illusion, b) the opponent cast non-illusion spell X, edit: or c) the opponent cast illusion spell Y, so if Spellcraft tells you it's Y, that constitutes proof.

[Xavier319]

So, you are suggesting that if someone makes a spellcraft check. they have immediately defeated any illusion that you cast. Who needs will saves? You have a skill check. You THINK he's casting an illusion. the gestures he's made tell you that. But you don't have proof. Think of it like a trial, you have to PROVE it, not suspect. if you touch an illusion, and your arm goes through it. then you've proven it to be not real. You automatically disbelieve it. Making a spellcraft check does not PROVE anything. what it would do is give you reason to study the illusion and get a save, or to walk up and touch it to PROVE it's not real. A spellcraft check does not constitute proof, it constitutes suspicion and reason to disbelieve.

Sadly this discussion is pointless, as nothing in the rules proves my point of view or yours. We'll just argue about the definition of proof and what it means. I simply do not believe that a skill check that is quite easy to make (and that anyone can max out with ease), should automatically defeat ANY illusions spell with a 'disbelief' save if you see it being cast.

This is exactly why when someone asks for advice on illusions, or how to build an illusionist, the first advice they are given is always "find out how your GM treats illusions", as there are no hard and fast definitions for exactly what constitutes proof, and also how to handle the rules. It varies from GM to GM. Thanks for your input! :)

[ryric]

Oh please please please disbelieve my invisible friend who has a readied action to pop out of invisibility the moment I finish casting my obvious illusion spell.

Just because you saw someone cast an illusion and then a thing happened does not mean that thing is guaranteed to be an illusion.

[Starglim]

ryric wrote:

Oh please please please disbelieve my invisible friend who has a readied action to pop out of invisibility the moment I finish casting my obvious illusion spell.

Just because you saw someone cast an illusion and then a thing happened does not mean that thing is guaranteed to be an illusion.

Very little could possibly be guaranteed by that standard. You pass your arm through a wall, which then disappears? It's incorporeal and I made it invisible as a silent, still, readied action. Quickened, if you like.

Luckily, the rule is not a waste of ink and paper, because it doesn't call for a guarantee beyond any possibility of contrary speculation, however baseless. Instead, it only considers the positive case. If I have proof something is an illusion, and it is an illusion, I don't need to make a save.

I can, of course, find proof of something that happens not to be true due to an unusual circumstance or deception outside of the otherwise-reasonable evidence available to me. It happens every day.

If I have proof your friend is an illusion, and in fact he's not an illusion, he doesn't go away. I may then have to rethink my reasoning in light of new evidence.

[N N 959]

Xavier319 wrote:

So, you are suggesting that if someone makes a spellcraft check. they have immediately defeated any illusion that you cast.

It means that the person who correctly identifies the spell as an illusion is not fooled by the illusion. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the rules. And I've played PFS scenarios where it works just like this.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Why does the spellcraft check get made in the first place? If the illusion was there prior to the caster, how does the caster know to make a spellcraft check. If the illusion was created in front of the caster that is, of course, reason to be suspicious and the spellcraft check might confirm those suspicions.

[seebs]

N N 959 wrote:

Xavier319 wrote:

So, you are suggesting that if someone makes a spellcraft check. they have immediately defeated any illusion that you cast.

It means that the person who correctly identifies the spell as an illusion is not fooled by the illusion. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the rules. And I've played PFS scenarios where it works just like this.

The question isn't whether it changes the rules, but where in the rules this is asserted.

[Starglim]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Why does the spellcraft check get made in the first place? If the illusion was there prior to the caster, how does the caster know to make a spellcraft check.

I've assumed the question was about a Spellcraft check to identify a spell being cast (a shadow conjuration or shadow evocation, in the OP). If the caster used detect magic, we could discuss similar questions around his Knowledge (arcana) check.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

If the illusion was created in front of the caster that is, of course, reason to be suspicious and the spellcraft check might confirm those suspicions.

Many spells create real objects or creatures. I think he would at least have to determine by game mechanics that it was some sort of illusion to get a bonus to his save.

[thomas gock]

Starglim wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Why does the spellcraft check get made in the first place? If the illusion was there prior to the caster, how does the caster know to make a spellcraft check.

I've assumed the question was about a Spellcraft check to identify a spell being cast (a shadow conjuration or shadow evocation, in the OP). If the caster used detect magic, we could discuss similar questions around his Knowledge (arcana) check.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

If the illusion was created in front of the caster that is, of course, reason to be suspicious and the spellcraft check might confirm those suspicions.

Many spells create real objects or creatures. I think he would at least have to determine by game mechanics that it was some sort of illusion to get a bonus to his save.

Different verbal and somatic components? Isn't that partly how you identify spells? Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: sorry, i should make this more clear. Don't you use V and S components of a spell to determine what spell is being cast? Or are components simply flavor, and not the same for all castings of a particular spell?

[Starglim]

thomas gock wrote:

Don't you use V and S components of a spell to determine what spell is being cast?

Yes, that's what the Spellcraft skill does.

thomas gock wrote:

Or are components simply flavor, and not the same for all castings of a particular spell?

That's an interesting question, which I don't think the rules address. In any case, the GM doesn't usually tell you what the verbal and somatic components are, unless you're in a Jack Chick pamphlet.

[Drake Brimstone]

If I see a caster cast a spell and I make my Spellcraft and determine that he cast Major Image and a Dretch appears in front of him then I have proof that the Dretch is an Illusion. If however I falsely identified the spell (Do to an ability that can trick you on what spell is being cast.) as Major Image and it was really a Summon Monster 3 and that Dretch is Real then I'm about to get caught flat footed when the "Illusion" attacks me and I Ignore it.

This is one reason GMs should make some rolls for the players so they don't know the results.

[thomas gock]

Starglim wrote:

thomas gock wrote:

Don't you use V and S components of a spell to determine what spell is being cast?

Yes, that's what the Spellcraft skill does. 

Then wouldn't that be the mechanical way of determining a spell? If you know the components are for an illusion spell, doesn't that count as proof to the character?

However, even though you know they are casting an illusion spell, you don't know what the illusion is exactly, meaning you may need further proof. I donno, I'm just theorizing.

[Remy Balster]

thomas gock wrote:

Starglim wrote:

thomas gock wrote:

Don't you use V and S components of a spell to determine what spell is being cast?

Yes, that's what the Spellcraft skill does.

Then wouldn't that be the mechanical way of determining a spell? If you know the components are for an illusion spell, doesn't that count as proof to the character?

However, even though you know they are casting an illusion spell, you don't know what the illusion is exactly, meaning you may need further proof. I donno, I'm just theorizing.

Quote:

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

If you succeed on your spellcraft check to identify a spell as it is being cast, you know exactly what spell it is. Not just the school, the exact spell.

Quote:

Identify a spell as it is being cast 15 + spell level

That is the DC. It is considered not an action and basically happens automatically when people around you are chucking spells around. You roll, and either know what spell is being cast, or you don't.

If you identify the spell as an illusion spell, and then something magically appears... you kinda know that it is an illusion.

[SirUrza]

Xavier319 wrote:

So, you are suggesting that if someone makes a spellcraft check. they have immediately defeated any illusion that you cast. Who needs will saves? You have a skill check. You THINK he's casting an illusion. the gestures he's made tell you that. But you don't have proof.

That's not how it works.

Spellcraft tells you what they cast. End of story.

Otherwise, counterspells wouldn't work. You counter Fireball with Fireball because spellcraft tells you they're casting Fireball.

That said, not everyone has Spellcraft and traditionally speaking, those classes that do have spellcraft USUALLY have nice enough will saves that illusions aren't going to be much of a threat.

[Xavier319]

Fair enough, I am convinced for usual illusions, good points all around. So that just means you have to use illusions more cleverly. Example: if there is a battle going on, and a lot is going on, say there are several clouds or some other BC effects going on. You could cast your illusion spell, they identify it.. but unless something pops out of nothing. they actually wont know what it is that the illusion is. So out of the stinking cloud comes a charging warrior who looks Just like the party's fighter who the BBEG knows is in the stinking cloud right now. Is that the illusion the guy just cast? or is that the real warrior? He knows there is AN illusion around, but unless you're VERY obvious about it, they wouldn't automatically disbelieve it, correct? Also, since you apply all penalties to spellcraft that you do to perception, in a fight you almost automatically get the -2 for "bad conditions, considering the noise, explosions and screaming going on (situation dependent of course, wouldnt apply to the beginning of a battle or during periods of relative calm), and if you're a BBEG being faced by a smiting paladin in melee, you'd probably get the -5 for being distracted to spellcraft the wizard in the corner who's casting spells, since you're most likely more focused on the guy trying to cut you in half with righteous fury. not to mention being invisible or breaking LOS will stop spellcraft checks as well, since visual sight is required.

Shadow spells specifically say you have to interact with them to get a save, and there is no automatic disbelief, since it is partially real. You'll know it's a shadow spell, but that just means you really hope you make your save, since you know if you cant willpower your way past it it WILL hurt you for real. so that's slightly different, at least from what I'm reading. Since they are quasi real and it says you don't even GET a save until you interact with them, if i summon a shadow conjuration dretch, he KNOWS it's partially real... but he also knows if he cant use his willpower to overcome it, it will still do him real damage. so how does that interact with this? And on that note, if you cast shadow conjuration, they have no idea, again, what effect you're making with it unless you're very blatant with it. It just seems to neuter stuff like the shadow spells if they identify it and automatically suffer the 20% effect of your shadow conjuration or evocation without needing to make a save.

And as a third question. DO people normally run things as the "if you make your save, and it's non-damaging it only works X% of the time, or do you do the reduced effectiveness suggested in the shadow conjuration guide i linked in my post above? Where you reduce it to 20% or whatever effectiveness? making a 50 foot pit 10 ft deep if you make your save, for example? or would 80% of people be able to just stand on it, and 20% of them fall in?

Sorry, I know it's a wall of text, but this is something I'm very interested in discussing with you fine people. :)

[thomas gock]

There are two spell casters standing next to each other. One casts an illusion spell the other casts summon monster. You know from spellcraft check that one of the things in fron of you is an illusion. Which one is it? I don't know if a simple spellcraft check should cut it.

[Xavier319]

That's what I'm saying. A spellcraft check, in a void, will work. You and another wizard are facing each other, he casts an illusion. You KNOW it's an illusion. you disbelieve. But if the caster is clever, or the two casters cast say... shadow evocation and fireball, at the same time (readied action?) they can fool someone. they know ONE of the fireballs is illusory, but not which one, negating the automatic disbelief. It just demands clever usage.

I still dont think that the automatic disbelief works on the Shadow spells, though I could be wrong. I'm convinced on the normal Illusions, they will just require some thought and guile.

Here's another way around it... The capstone for the Veiled Illusionist PrC...

Naga: At 10th level, as a free action while casting an illusion spell, a veiled illusionist can spend 1 point from her veil pool to coil the illusion upon itself. Any creature that disbelieves the illusion sees a second illusion within the translucent outline of the first, as if the illusionist had cast the spell a second time. Effectively, after a creature disbelieves the first illusion, it sees a second illusion in its place, which it must attempt to disbelieve separately. The veiled illusionist must determine the features of the second illusion as she casts the first. If the second illusion is especially similar to the first one, creatures that study or interact with it receive a +4 bonus on the save to disbelieve the effect.

This way, they make the spellcraft check, and see through the illusion, but then see something else under it. Now, this is abnormal enough that unless they are intimately familiar with how Veiled Illusionist work, you could reasonably argue that they no longer have 'proof' for the second illusion, as this is NOT how the spell they identified works at all, wouldn't you agree?

[Splendor]

Spellcraft is modified by perception modifiers when trying to identify a spell being cast.
1) -1 per 10'
2) Creature making the check is distracted: +5 - Is someone actively threatening him? Then he's distracted.
3) Penalties for noise in area if spell has verbal components or is a silent spell.
4) Penalties for concealment/cover if the spell has somatic components and you can't always see him or is a still spell.

3&4- A common house rule is -5 per metamagic feat added.

So you want to cast a spell and not have it identified?
a) Keep distance: -1/10' Illusions usually have good ranges.
b) Have an ally threaten them. Shoot at them, be within threatening range (AoO range).
c) Get cover/concealment. If they can't see your somatic and material components the DC should go up. Stand behind someone for soft cover. take cover behind a rock/tree/bush.
d) If your allies don't need to be quite, have them be loud. Should give then a penalty when trying to hear your verbal components.

What you might be able to try / or can't try:
a) Whispering doesn't work. To cast a spell "you must be able to speak in a strong voice".
b) Turning your back. While there is no penalty RAW for turning your back to someone for a moment, the DM could be mean and adjudicate one. But if he allows it the enemy shouldn't be able to see your somatic components.
c) Covering your hand with a cloak to hide the somatic components. As (b) the DM could adjudicate that the cloak didn't allow full movement and impose a spell failure (if its more than 5-10%, he's really mean).

[ryric]

Starglim wrote:

ryric wrote:

Oh please please please disbelieve my invisible friend who has a readied action to pop out of invisibility the moment I finish casting my obvious illusion spell.

Just because you saw someone cast an illusion and then a thing happened does not mean that thing is guaranteed to be an illusion.

Very little could possibly be guaranteed by that standard. You pass your arm through a wall, which then disappears? It's incorporeal and I made it invisible as a silent, still, readied action. Quickened, if you like.

Luckily, the rule is not a waste of ink and paper, because it doesn't call for a guarantee beyond any possibility of contrary speculation, however baseless. Instead, it only considers the positive case. If I have proof something is an illusion, and it is an illusion, I don't need to make a save.

I can, of course, find proof of something that happens not to be true due to an unusual circumstance or deception outside of the otherwise-reasonable evidence available to me. It happens every day.

If I have proof your friend is an illusion, and in fact he's not an illusion, he doesn't go away. I may then have to rethink my reasoning in light of new evidence.

While I agree that there is a standard of proof that works shy of eliminating all possible methods of trickery - sticking your hand through a stationary wall for example - claiming that "the wizard just cast an illusion spell means the next thing that happens is provably an illusion" is an application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "A happens then B happens so A caused B." A logical fallacy is not a reasonable amount of proof. It is certainly cause for suspicion that something is an illusion, but certainly not cause for auto-disbelief.

[Remy Balster]

ryric wrote:

Starglim wrote:

ryric wrote:

Oh please please please disbelieve my invisible friend who has a readied action to pop out of invisibility the moment I finish casting my obvious illusion spell.

Just because you saw someone cast an illusion and then a thing happened does not mean that thing is guaranteed to be an illusion.

Very little could possibly be guaranteed by that standard. You pass your arm through a wall, which then disappears? It's incorporeal and I made it invisible as a silent, still, readied action. Quickened, if you like.

Luckily, the rule is not a waste of ink and paper, because it doesn't call for a guarantee beyond any possibility of contrary speculation, however baseless. Instead, it only considers the positive case. If I have proof something is an illusion, and it is an illusion, I don't need to make a save.

I can, of course, find proof of something that happens not to be true due to an unusual circumstance or deception outside of the otherwise-reasonable evidence available to me. It happens every day.

If I have proof your friend is an illusion, and in fact he's not an illusion, he doesn't go away. I may then have to rethink my reasoning in light of new evidence.

While I agree that there is a standard of proof that works shy of eliminating all possible methods of trickery - sticking your hand through a stationary wall for example - claiming that "the wizard just cast an illusion spell means the next thing that happens is provably an illusion" is an application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "A happens then B happens so A caused B." A logical fallacy is not a reasonable amount of proof. It is certainly cause for suspicion that something is an illusion, but certainly not cause for auto-disbelief.

The illusionist you are fighting casts a spell. You identify it, he is casting silent image. A wall suddenly appears in the open field between him and your party.

It is a fallacy to recognize that the wall is an illusion? Ha.

I let go of my carkeys. They fall to the ground. I wonder if letting go was in any way responsible for them falling? Guess not! Don’t wanna commit a logical fallacy guys.

It isn’t a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if A actually causes B and you know A can cause B. Then recognizing that A caused B is probably not a bad idea.

[Cuttler]

ryric wrote:

"A happens then B happens so A caused B." A logical fallacy is not a reasonable amount of proof. It is certainly cause for suspicion that something is an illusion, but certainly not cause for auto-disbelief.

ok reading that when you just got up needs some rereading!!!

But I totally support Remy on this.

Remy Balster wrote:

If you identify the spell as an illusion spell, and then something magically appears... you kinda know that it is an illusion.

Basically, if you succeed on your spellcraft, you know exactly what spell is being cast; there is thus no doubt to you that the illusion is indeed an illusion.

Guys, just try to imagine how you would react if you were an expert (having spellcraft) and had successfully identified the spell...there is no doubt you would disregard the spell...

I think that having successfully made your spellcraft check is considered as "being faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

[ryric]

Remy Balster wrote:

The illusionist you are fighting casts a spell. You identify it, he is casting silent image. A wall suddenly appears in the open field between him and your party.

It is a fallacy to recognize that wall is an illusion? Ha.

You have a strong suspicion that the wall is an illusion. You may even be able to safely assume so. But you don't have proof that it is until something passes through it. You don't get to auto-disbelieve illusions just because you made a spellcraft check.

I think we are actually having a disagreement about different levels of proof. You seem to go by a standard of proof similar to that of a criminal proceeding, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I tend to operate that auto-disbelief requires a more scientific/logical level of proof, basically an outright demonstration of unreality. With the lesser level you are certainly justified in making a Will save for disbelief, and even telling your friends that you think it's an illusion. But you have to actually see someone stick their hand through it or other direct proof to get the "no save needed" disbelief.

Edit: Also, from a game point of view, it doesn't make sense that an easily taken skill should basically negate an entire school of magic. In fact, in such a world where it does, any illusionist would have to rely on trickery like I described above with the invisible friend in order to get any use at all from his spells, since everybody gets to basically negate them for free. But if all illusionists have to do stuff like that all the time in order to even use their most basic effects, then cases like that wouldn't be rare and the assumption that the next effect must be an illusion still fails.

[Cuttler]

Ryric...your comment on the fact that it would negate (or strongly reduce efficiency we might say) of an entire school is totally valid and merits some reflections....unfortunately it is in the domain of RAI...

Rulewise, RAW for spellcraft allows you to identify the spell. Once you know that is is an illusion, RAW says you need no saving throw...

If you know it's an illusion, i just can't see how seeing someone passing through the illusionay wall makes it more real to you than knowing for fact (because of spellcraft) that it is an illusion...

Now, the whole debate for or against comes down to whether or not knowing it's an illusion spell gives you PROOF....

To me, it is, to some other(for you) , it is not....

Not sure there will be a consensus here...

[ryric]

Cuttler wrote:

Ryric...your comment on the fact that it would negate (or strongly reduce efficiency we might say) of an entire school is totally valid and merits some reflections....unfortunately it is in the domain of RAI...

Rulewise, RAW for spellcraft allows you to identify the spell. Once you know that is is an illusion, RAW says you need no saving throw...

If you know it's an illusion, i just can't see how seeing someone passing through the illusionay wall makes it more real to you than knowing for fact (because of spellcraft) that it is an illusion...

Now, the whole debate for or against comes down to whether or not knowing it's an illusion spell gives you PROOF....

To me, it is, to some other(for you) , it is not....

Not sure there will be a consensus here...

I think that's exactly my point of contention - you know for certain that an illusion spell is cast, but you don't know for certain that any given effect is an illusion. Intellectually you may realize that some effect isn't real, but until you wave your hand through it all your senses are screaming at you to take it seriously.

It's like watching RL stage magic. You know it's a trick but it still looks very convincing.

RAW supports both interpretations, because we're disagreeing on the meaning of a normal English word - one that has multiple definitions. I just think my version is closer to RAI simply because my way illusions actually work, instead of being worthless.

Edit: I thought of a couple more examples to try and sell my point of view:

I like optical illusions. There are a set of illusions designed to fool our color vision by manipulating light and contrast. I have shown these illusions to people, and they swear up and down they are seeing, say, two different colors. I can then show them that the colors are identical...they have the same amount of RGB, the code that makes up the image has the same color code, etc, and they still maintain their belief despite being given proof that the colors are different. People tend to believe what they see despite arguments to the contrary. I've created paper masks for the screen to show that the colors look identical when you remove all the context, and had people somehow claim that the mask was changing them. These people believe the illusion despite solid proof and demonstrations that it isn't real, let alone a logical explanation.

From a more in game perspective, combat is chaotic and happening nearly all at once. Despite the fact that we take turns, from our character's POV it's all mixed together. Here's an example situation: The PCs are fighting in an old warehouse being used as a meeting place for some thieves. The thieves have a caster who the PC wizard sees cast major image. In the next second or so of combat the following things happen:

One of the thieves pulls out a holy symbol and starts casting a summon spell
A banging occurs on the outer door and authoritative shouting is heard
Two humans in leather armor with shortswords enter the fray from behind some boxes
One of the thieves takes a swing at the PC's fighter.

Which of those things is the illusion? Supposedly we can automatically tell.

[seebs]

You can automatically tell in most cases because you see the spell cast and then immediately see something pop into view.

[Diego Rossi]

thomas gock wrote:

There are two spell casters standing next to each other. One casts an illusion spell the other casts summon monster. You know from spellcraft check that one of the things in fron of you is an illusion. Which one is it? I don't know if a simple spellcraft check should cut it.

The will not complete the spell at the same time.

Wizard A complete his summon monster spell, the summoned monster appear and act.

Wizard B use his standard action to cast shadow conjuration, a monster appear and act.

If both creatures are conjured in a location where you can see them you know what is the monster summoned by wizard A and what si the monster summoned by wizard B.

And Xavier, if you know that the creature was summoned by a Shadow conjuration spell, you don't need to make the save at all if it interact with you.

PRD wrote:

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.

You know that that monster was summoned with a Shadow conjuration spell so you have full proof that that particular monster is a illusion. End of the matter. You don't need to make any save.

To avoid that you summon the creature/object/force in a location where it can't be seen and have it act at a different initiative count.
Or you use it against someone that probably can't make the spellcraft check.

[Diego Rossi]

Splendor wrote:

3) Penalties for noise in area if spell has verbal components or is a silent spell.
4) Penalties for concealment/cover if the spell has somatic components and you can't always see him or is a still spell.

Both houserules.

Splendor wrote:

c) Get cover/concealment. If they can't see your somatic and material components the DC should go up. Stand behind someone for soft cover. take cover behind a rock/tree/bush.

Again, houserule. Nothing like that in the perception rules unless you are behind a door or a wall.

[Diego Rossi]

ryric wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

The illusionist you are fighting casts a spell. You identify it, he is casting silent image. A wall suddenly appears in the open field between him and your party.

It is a fallacy to recognize that wall is an illusion? Ha.

You have a strong suspicion that the wall is an illusion. You may even be able to safely assume so. But you don't have proof that it is until something passes through it. You don't get to auto-disbelieve illusions just because you made a spellcraft check.

I think we are actually having a disagreement about different levels of proof. You seem to go by a standard of proof similar to that of a criminal proceeding, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I tend to operate that auto-disbelief requires a more scientific/logical level of proof, basically an outright demonstration of unreality. With the lesser level you are certainly justified in making a Will save for disbelief, and even telling your friends that you think it's an illusion. But you have to actually see someone stick their hand through it or other direct proof to get the "no save needed" disbelief.

Edit: Also, from a game point of view, it doesn't make sense that an easily taken skill should basically negate an entire school of magic. In fact, in such a world where it does, any illusionist would have to rely on trickery like I described above with the invisible friend in order to get any use at all from his spells, since everybody gets to basically negate them for free. But if all illusionists have to do stuff like that all the time in order to even use their most basic effects, then cases like that wouldn't be rare and the assumption that the next effect must be an illusion still fails.

Your logic is the exact opposite of scientific logic ryric.

You are negating the cause/effect relation.

And your comment about negating a field of magic.
Check what protection from evil/good/law/chaos do.
If we operate with your logic the only viable enchanter is a neutral one. Most of his spells are negated by a first level spell.

[Cuttler]

ryric wrote:

I like optical illusions. There are a set of illusions designed to fool our color vision by manipulating light and contrast. I have shown these illusions to people, and they swear up and down they are seeing, say, two different colors. I can then show them that the colors are identical...they have the same amount of RGB, the code that makes up the image has the same color code, etc, and they still maintain their belief despite being given proof that the colors are different. People tend to believe what they see despite arguments to the contrary. I've created paper masks for the screen to show that the colors look identical when you remove all the context, and had people somehow claim that the mask was changing them. These people believe the illusion despite solid proof and demonstrations that it isn't real, let alone a logical explanation.

Interesting point, but my answer would be not to confuse what my senses see and whether I know something is real or not. Your optical illusions affect my senses, but I know it is an illusion and I won't react to it accordingly...But I can understand that some people might...

ryric wrote:

Here's an example situation: The PCs are fighting in an old warehouse being used as a meeting place for some thieves. The thieves have a caster who the PC wizard sees cast major image. In the next second or so of combat the following things happen:

One of the thieves pulls out a holy symbol and starts casting a summon spell
A banging occurs on the outer door and authoritative shouting is heard
Two humans in leather armor with shortswords enter the fray from behind some boxes
One of the thieves takes a swing at the PC's fighter.

Now that is an interesting situation. My initial reaction was to think like Seeb and say that you know that the thing that suddenly popped into view is the illusion. If you cast a major image and a wall appears in front of me within miliseconds after casting, I know it is not real.

However, the illusion is maitained by concentration and won't be static throughout the whole round (you can make it move) so maybe it is possible to make the sounds of banging on a door happening after another character, or new threads appearing (2 humans) out of no where after another thief took his turn. I would agree to that if it would be allowed by RAW ( timingwise)....

My question would then be: do you need to prepare an action (such as ready action) to make appear your illusion whenever it happens, or you control it throughout the entire round and can control it at will???? Thus making appear your new thieves whenever you want??

[thomas gock]

I think everyone is reading too much into it. All else aside, when you two monsters appear in front of you at the same time, do you know which one is real? No. It doesnt matter who cast it, or how long it took. Both appear at the same time. Maybe RAW says you magically know which one the illusion is, but then i would say that rule is wrong and you should house rule it.

Why wouldn't everyone put tons of ranks into spellcraft? The ONLY thing you miss out on if it isn't a class skill is a plus 3. Negligible.

[Remy Balster]

ryric wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

The illusionist you are fighting casts a spell. You identify it, he is casting silent image. A wall suddenly appears in the open field between him and your party.

It is a fallacy to recognize that wall is an illusion? Ha.

You have a strong suspicion that the wall is an illusion. You may even be able to safely assume so. But you don't have proof that it is until something passes through it. You don't get to auto-disbelieve illusions just because you made a spellcraft check.

I think we are actually having a disagreement about different levels of proof. You seem to go by a standard of proof similar to that of a criminal proceeding, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I tend to operate that auto-disbelief requires a more scientific/logical level of proof, basically an outright demonstration of unreality. With the lesser level you are certainly justified in making a Will save for disbelief, and even telling your friends that you think it's an illusion. But you have to actually see someone stick their hand through it or other direct proof to get the "no save needed" disbelief.

Edit: Also, from a game point of view, it doesn't make sense that an easily taken skill should basically negate an entire school of magic. In fact, in such a world where it does, any illusionist would have to rely on trickery like I described above with the invisible friend in order to get any use at all from his spells, since everybody gets to basically negate them for free. But if all illusionists have to do stuff like that all the time in order to even use their most basic effects, then cases like that wouldn't be rare and the assumption that the next effect must be an illusion still fails.

Oh jesus, are we really going to argue about what constitutes proof here? I get enough of that debating theists... ugh.

No one can know anything for certain!

Do you know that for certain?

Har har har

So old...

Look mate, reasonable suspicion is proof.

If I touch a wall, and my hand goes through it, I have reasonable suspicion that the wall isn't real. I still cannot be 100% absolutely certain though. All KINDS of reasons are valid, so... I cannot ever be 100% certain that the wall isn't real. Even if we systematically test each new 'other explanation' we can always come up with yet another 'possible' explanation.

And even if we do come up with the last and final and only explanation after decades and eons of testing and excluding every other possible explanation... we still cannot independently 'prove' tat the very basics of our perception is reliable. What we see hear feel touch might be totally wrong, it might have always been wrong, we might not have any ability to perceive reality in the first place!

Blah blah blah.

But that does NOT stop us from being reasonably certain of something. I am reasonably certain you are a human being. Can I prove it? Naw... but I don't believe it for bad reasons either.

There very fact that you are on the internet and communicating with us is all the 'proof' I need to know that you're a human being.

Have I scientifically demonstrated that you are? Should I need to? Is that enough to be certain?

Where is the line of certainty? What constitutes proof and what does not? If knowing an illusion spell is cast, and seeing a wall appear out of nowhere... if this doesn't constitute proof, what does??

How can you say that isn't good enough, and then determine passing your hand through it is? What is the difference? Maybe the magic wall turns you incorporeal. Maybe you always have been incorporeal and you never noticed. Maybe the wall isn't an illusion, but you are. Maybe the wall is incorporeal, looks solid, but isn't. It is a real wall though, and blocks incorporeal things.

You could come up with an infinite number of explanations... so how do you draw the line on what constitutes enough proof?

Scientists use peer review. Independent verification of finding, and even then, over long stretches of time and countless discoveries, they are not so confident as to call their understand incontrovertible proof. It is a theory! And rightly so, because absolute certainty doesn't apply to all things. Some things can only be reasonably certain.

[thomas gock]

@ Remy: this is a high fantasy setting with lots of magic and beings that are beyond the scope of mortal understanding. That wall REALLY could not be the illusion. For any number of magical reasons I won't go into.

[seebs]

Okay, so basically, I can utterly slaughter people if I can find a way to present a convincing appearance of casting illusion spells.

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Dotting.

[ryric]

seebs wrote:

Okay, so basically, I can utterly slaughter people if I can find a way to present a convincing appearance of casting illusion spells.

+1. That's exactly my point. If I were casting illusions in a game where spellcraft equated with automatic disbelief, I'd want to cast illusions that did nothing and watch my foes "disbeleive" a bunch of real things. If someone casts minor image and nothing in your immediate view noticably changes, what exactly are you auto-disbelieving?

Reasonable suspicion is proof? Wow. I'm not sure I have a way to respond to being that credulous. Suspicion is suspicion, not proof, otherwise everyone ever arrested by the police is apparently guilty.

Reasonable certainty is a level of proof. It's even one I'd allow to disbelieve illusions. But I don't think making a spellcraft check constitutes reasonable certainty if the illusion is well crafted.

Note: It seems like many people think illusionists have to have their effects pop unnaturally into existence with a big sign saying "this is the spell I just cast!" That illusionist is stupid and I will refer to him as the straw illusionist. Straw illusionist's spells are easy to disbelieve because he puts no effort into making them plausible.

A good illusionist's effect enter the field with plausibility. They are things that could actually happen. They can be confused with real things. They are likely not obvious magical effects, or is they are, they are timed to coincide with real effects to be confusing. I mean, wizards are supposed to be smart, so they would use their effects in smart ways.

For example, to make shadow conjuration work I juts need a place in my line of sight that's not in yours - a corner, for example. Round 1 I cast summon monster III, you id it, and I summon my monsters where you can't see. Next round I cast shadow conjuration and you id it. Then 4 wolves run around the corner. And you're telling me you can auto-disbelieve the shadow wolves? Not in my game. Even without the earlier summon spell, you wouldn't know if I had one going from pre-combat prep magic, or maybe I've got charmed animals, or any number of other things that could let me mix shadow and real wolves. There is too much doubt for auto-disbelief.

[shiiktan]

Everyone keeps acting like Spellcraft-disbelief makes illusions worthless - why do expect to be able to fool someone who is just as knowledgeable about magic as you?

Illusions are great against people who don't make a living studying how to make illusions (and other magical effects.)

[Keep Calm and Carrion]

My illusionist had two methods for casting figments and shadows in front of opponents he suspected had decent spellcraft skill.

1--A Lyrakien familiar with a wand of vanish.
2--The 8th level illusion specialist wizard power: greater invisibility as a swift action for up to your level times a day.

Opponents who can’t see you can’t make spellcraft checks to identify the spell you’re casting. Works to prevent counterspelling, too.

Know what makes a great programmed illusion? A wizard that appears to be casting Major Image. Set it to trigger on a command word, and speak that word right before you start casting, say, Wall of Fire or Cloudkill or Hungry Pit from invisibility.

[GeneticDrift]

here is an other thread this came up in, Phantasmal web

I am of the opinion passing the spellcraft gives you +4, there are some rare abilities that can deceive you on the check as well as an illusion you did not discover.

[blahpers]

To be fair, most folks with good Spellcraft also have good Will saves, so it's not really much of a boon. Besides, the best illusions are cast out of perception range.

[Dr Grecko]

Simply casting a spell that spellcraft identifies as an illusion is not in fact proof that what you are seeing is indeed an illusion.

-

Consider the following scenario...

xxa|
xxB|
xxx|____
xxbxxxxE
xxAxxxxx

Wizard A casts an illusion spell a, that enemy E identifies. However, Summunor B casts a Readied Action, Quickened Silent Summon spell in location b.

Enemy E assumes that b is an illusion because A cast an illusion spell and a monster popped up in location b.

However, the illusion actually appeared in location a where the enemy could not see it.

Furthermore, now Wizard A can bring his illusion out, and enemy E would have no clue if it is an illusion or not.

-----

Quite simply, you do not have absolute proof just from identifying the spell being cast as an illusion, that it is indisputably an illusion.

i most certainly would allow the +4 bonus as they have a reasonable suspicion, but they most assuredly do not have "Proof".

[N N 959]

Dr Grecko wrote:

Quite simply, you do not have absolute proof just from identifying the spell being cast as an illusion, that it is indisputably an illusion.

As others have pointed out, nothing gives you "absolute" proof in a world of magic. Under your logic, even the caster telling you he's casting an illusion isn't absolute proof.

Quit trying to screw over the players. Quit meta-gaming ways for NPC's to counteract the PCs who they've never met. If the PCs or NPCs Spellcraft an illusion being cast, accept it and move on.

[ryric]

N N 959 wrote:

Under your logic, even the caster telling you he's casting an illusion isn't absolute proof.

Nope, but that's good enough for the +4.

This has nothing to do with screwing over anyone, players or NPCs. It's more that people tend to trust their senses more than their intellectual understanding of a situation, especially in a hectic environment like combat.

Actually my posts in this thread have been much more in the mindset of making sure that a PC illusionist can actually use their spells assuming they put some reasonable cleverness into their use, instead of having an NPC automatically see right thorugh all their effects just because he has Spellcraft.

I wonder what happens in these games when a character "auto-disbelieves" something that's actually real? I hope they're at least flat-footed if not helpless against it.

Example: Wizard has been secretly dominated/replaced by a doppleganger/otherwise comprimised. He tells the party "I'm going to cast an illusionary fireball" and then proceeds to cast a real fireball. How does the auto-disbelief work now? Do the PCs only see though it if he wasn't lying? How does that make any sense?

In a magical world the range of possible real effects is much broader than in the real world, so the standard of proof that an effect isn't real has to be much tighter. Fewer claims are extraordinary, but a claim that a observed phenomenon lacks reality still requires some evidence, not just the claim.

[N N 959]

ryric wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Under your logic, even the caster telling you he's casting an illusion isn't absolute proof.

Nope, but that's good enough for the +4.

The rules state if you have proof, the illusion fails. Your house rules means the players never have proof and would make the RAW meaningless. Perhaps you might rethink your approach?

Quote:

This has nothing to do with screwing over anyone, players or NPCs. It's more that people tend to trust their senses more than their intellectual understanding of a situation, especially in a hectic environment like combat.

This is a game that is far removed from reality. Accept that it's a game and enjoy it as a game. It's not a real life simulator.

Quote:

I wonder what happens in these games when a character "auto-disbelieves" something that's actually real? I hope they're at least flat-footed if not helpless against it.

No, they are not flat-footed.

The game does not contemplate a universe of issues. For example, there is no way to convince someone you are telling the truth. Sense Motive tells you if they are lying. If they are telling the truth and you fail your Sense Motive, check, what happens? Do you think their truth is a lie? No. You just can't tell if they are lying.

3.5/PF, is full of holes. Accept that and move on. You aren't going to "fix" the game by arbitrarily trying to apply reality. Once you go down that path, you're going to have to address every silly/ridiculous rule that violates logic....and there are a ton of them.

[Dr Grecko]

N N 959 wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

Quite simply, you do not have absolute proof just from identifying the spell being cast as an illusion, that it is indisputably an illusion.

As others have pointed out, nothing gives you "absolute" proof in a world of magic. Under your logic, even the caster telling you he's casting an illusion isn't absolute proof.

Quit trying to screw over the players. Quit meta-gaming ways for NPC's to counteract the PCs who they've never met. If the PCs or NPCs Spellcraft an illusion being cast, accept it and move on.

If you think this is about screwing over players, you seriously need to reconsider what's being said here.

"proof" constitutes many things. examples: You cover it in water, but it is not wet. You crash into a wall but rather than it stopping you, you fly right through it.

Simply identifying that an illusion was cast, does not guarantee you that what you are now seeing is in fact an illusion. I gave a clear example explaining my position, and rather than debating that example on it's merits, you accuse me of trying to "screw over my players" when this interpretation benefits them as much as it does the NPC's.

Next time, try a less hostile tone.

[Hendelbolaf]

The other piece that some may be missing is that I do not believe that all illusions are created equal.

For example, if I say "I am going to cast an illusion spell of Color Spray on you so be ready," then you know it is an illusion and you know it is coming. Do you not need to make a save now since you have "proof" it is an illusion as I just told you it is? I don't think so.

I think the magic section is poorly worded and that clause that says " 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" really refers to the more classic illusions generated by spells like Silent Image, Major Image, etc. Especially since the previous line says "A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss." Well something is amiss is you fail the save for Color Spray as you will be stunned or worse!

I have not met a DM or player that assumes that if they know the spell is Color Spray, then they are basically immune to it because of the lines that I quoted.

So, if we keep that in mind, then this is really not a big issue. The classic illusions (ie Silent Image, Major Image, etc.) cannot do damage to anyone so it would make sense that those "illusions" would be under the proof means no save type of illusions.