I disbelieve it's magic, in a young girls heart


Rules Questions


I'm pretty ignorant to magic rules, and I've never been at the other side of the screen. I am mister human fighter. So, in pfs we encountered an illusion spell, and it was obvious, so I asked about it, and got to roll and knew it wasn't a thing that existed. Cool beans.

So, next week we meet, and before the game I ask about the deal with not rolling a will save for me, or telling me to roll for the illusion when one is being perceived by my character. I'm told I need to say, "I disbelieve". That seems completely bonkers to me. I told him to assume my character is just skeptical of everything, and always paranoid, and still disbelieve like he's getting paid, and I'm told that'll take too long to do, so no.

Is this really a thing? If I use an illusion, the enemy is just getting automatic checks on default, but I can't have this? Illusion spells seem mad broken in terms of fairness between pc and npc. Like do I put a skill point into spell craft and if it applies knowledge arcana, and triple check literally everything that can be perceived, or am I doomed with being lucky with asking occasionally where an npc just does things?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:
So, in pfs we encountered an illusion spell, and it was obvious, so I asked about it, and got to roll and knew it wasn't a thing that existed. Cool beans.

was it pockets


I don't know who pockets is, but I have a feeling I want to know more information.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Forget Illusions, use Evocation.

Believe in magic again.


But I never believed in the first place. Over fifteen years of playing, and last Wednesday was the first time I was something other than a fighter. Slayer shield bash monster masher.

I might magus one day, but that will be a very sad day


DAT LINK DOE


o.O

Um... what demented web mastery must Rynjin possess to find that video at this moment? I tremble in fear of his browser history.


Aranna wrote:

o.O

Um... what demented web mastery must Rynjin possess to find that video at this moment? I tremble in fear of his browser history.

Hey, Team Fortress 2 is the third (formerly 1st for a great many years) most played game on Steam. It's no like finding one of the Meet the Team videos is some great Herculean feat. =p

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember that by default, your character believes everything around him. He believes there is a floor, so he walks across it. He believes there's an orc in front of him, so he attacks it. Etc.

Simply saying "I disbelieve" without any associated action doesn't do anything. (i.e. doesn't give you a saving throw to disbelieve) You have to interact with the object. And you have to interact with it like you believe it doesn't exist.

So if you disbelieve a wall, that means you try to walk through it, which, if it's real, will cause you to bump your head and maybe tweak your nose.

If you disbelieve an orc, and thus try to wave your hand through it, and the orc happens to be real, the orc clearly deserves an AoO against you for dropping your guard like that.

Another extension: if an archer is shooting arrows at you, and you try to dodge (i.e. add your Dex bonus to AC), then you are believing in those arrows. If you willingly let an arrow hit you in the chest, then are you disbelieving it. (Via interaction.)

So that's why you can't (or at least shouldn't) say "I disbelieve everything." Because then you'd bump into a bunch of walls and then get killed from not dodging any monsters.

Hopefully that makes sense.


So, am I only entitled to disbelieve an illusion by stating I do?


PRD>Magic>Spell Descriptions>School (Subschool)>Illusion 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.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Rapanuii wrote:
So, am I only entitled to disbelieve an illusion by stating I do?

Different illusion spells have different rules, so this isn't universally applicable, but in general you get a saving throw whenever you notice a discrepancy, even if you don't say "I disbelieve"

So if you see (an illusion of) a little girl just standing there, you get no save. If that girl then proceeds to pick up a horse and lift it over her head, you get a saving throw. Likewise, if you were to try and touch the girl (interaction), you would get a save.

Now, that's talking about illusions of entirely fake things. Let's say that I happen to own a red scabbard, but I use an illusion to make it look like a blue scabbard. Simply touching the scabbard won't let you get a free saving throw, because "red paint" feels just like "blue paint". You'd have to dig deeper to see through that one.


So if there's an illusionary floor do you just automatically fall through it?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

mephnick wrote:
So if there's an illusionary floor do you just automatically fall through it?

If you are Wile E Coyote, then no. You only fall once you disbelieve. :-p

More seriously, yes you start to fall, but where it goes from there depends on the setup. If there is a real floor flush with an illusion (covering a pit/cliff), then you should be entitled to a Reflex save to quickly put your weight back on to your other foot and avoid falling in. If the character was running at the time, that character should be penalized. Either way, there's no Will save, we're only talking about Reflex saves. (You'd get a Will save if you prodded the floor with a pole, or tossed dust over it, or whatever.)

If you want to deny the Reflex save, then the illusionist needs to be devious. For example, take a situation where there is a horse-track with a small fence to jump. And on the far side of the fence, there's a pit covered by an illusion. Horse jumps the fence, and ... goes into the pit, no save.
(I've also seen this done with a rope hanging down a wall for easy rappelling. The rope is about 6 feet short of the ground, so you rappel down, then let go and drop the rest of the way. There was a black ooze under that illusionary floor. Bad times.)


Like ghost sound allows will saves to disbelieve, but unless someone is reasonably skeptical, then they don't get a save? Should I withhold the dc information from the gm and remind them on enforcing these rules to creatures given the correct circumstances, or they an exception always?

It does seem insane that a low level illusion to make a fake floor will just become the ultimate doom for my character without being able to have any chance to survive. You just fall into the 5000 ft hole that is proceeded by lava and super lava.

Edit: some was answered with the reflex save answer

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Ghost sound is special. As per the last sentence of the spell, you automatically get a save to disbelieve no matter what. Without interaction, without noticing a discrepancy, nada. This is an exception to the general rule. (Hence why they have to call it out there, but don't have that text on other spells.)

Each illusion spell is different: I'm only talking about general rules and principles.

Now, in the case of your 5000-ft pit to lava, I'd call foul. I'd expect to feel overwhelming heat from the lava being so close, and I'd expect to hear my voice echoing like crazy from having a 5000-ft tube nearby. The GM should give me these descriptions (without a Perception check; they're pretty obvious), and now armed with these hints, I know to stop and be cautious. Maybe toss some coppers on the floor in front of me, see if they fall through.

(And even if I did start falling, 5000 ft takes a few rounds to fall down: I'd hope I'd get a few chances to grab a wall or something. At least ask a friend to attach a rope to an arrow and shoot it at me.)

Remember: low level illusion spells are limited, and can't hide/cover things like heat. That's part of where the balance comes from.

Sczarni

The on-paper rule for Will saves versus Illusions is that you don't get a Will save until you "interact" with the illusion, which is supposed to take a standard action.

In actual execution, how illusions work seems to vary a lot from one GM to another, and depending on what the illusion is an illusion OF. Some GMs will have monsters stop to examine things they shouldn't have any reason to "examine" except that they know it's an illusion and just need to burn the standard action so as to get permission to disbelieve. Sometimes GMs forget and just have enemies or PCs roll Will saves when the spell is cast, like most other spells. Some GMs try and take the plausibility of the illusion into account (it's easier to disbelieve a unicorn illusion in a city than in a forest) but this is all "what makes sense to the GM".

So, your original answer, is most likely your GM went with his gut instinct according to the situation.


Erik Freund wrote:


Now, that's talking about illusions of entirely fake things. Let's say that I happen to own a red scabbard, but I use an illusion to make it look like a blue scabbard. Simply touching the scabbard won't let you get a free saving throw, because "red paint" feels just like "blue paint". You'd have to dig deeper to see through that one.

What? No, if you interact with the "red paint" illusion you get a save. That it feels the same is not important. You're interacting with the illusion so your will power automatically tries to overcome the magic.


Alright, things have been enlightening and awesome due to being shown that video that I knew existed already, but is still sick as hell.

I am worried with how a gm rolls with illusions still, but I guess after the fact I get to attempt to argue things so rules get followed properly.

"Ehh, sound in the room wasn't subjected to being distorted by an echo from the large hole in the floor, which I should get a perception check for? Maybe I didn't fall to my death then?"

I generally have a gripe with perception checks not existing when they should, and how they're an exception for the enemy. No check needed, the enemy just waits to ambush you because they heard you coming, and they make no stealth check which you attempt to ever counter. It goes along with auto disbelief attempts, and it's not very fair. Just got to hope the gm is on top of things it seems.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:


Now, that's talking about illusions of entirely fake things. Let's say that I happen to own a red scabbard, but I use an illusion to make it look like a blue scabbard. Simply touching the scabbard won't let you get a free saving throw, because "red paint" feels just like "blue paint". You'd have to dig deeper to see through that one.
What? No, if you interact with the "red paint" illusion you get a save. That it feels the same is not important. You're interacting with the illusion so your will power automatically tries to overcome the magic.

this was my impression too, and I'm not certain even now with how this is supposed to work. Conditional of the spell maybe, or am I getting bad information here?

I expect that my brain has a chance when perceiving anything that is an illusion, that it attempts to disregard and not be affected.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:


Now, that's talking about illusions of entirely fake things. Let's say that I happen to own a red scabbard, but I use an illusion to make it look like a blue scabbard. Simply touching the scabbard won't let you get a free saving throw, because "red paint" feels just like "blue paint". You'd have to dig deeper to see through that one.
What? No, if you interact with the "red paint" illusion you get a save. That it feels the same is not important. You're interacting with the illusion so your will power automatically tries to overcome the magic.

We're getting into GM-adjudication here. As for myself, I would say that "touching" is not the same thing as "interacting". A quick dictionary search for Interact: "act on each other: to have an effect on somebody or something else or on one another"

I would say that touching the paint of a scabbard doesn't fit that bill. You didn't "have an effect" on it. (Assuming normal, dry paint, etc.)

With a creature, touching is pretty much always interacting. Or if the wall is fake, and your hand goes through it, that's clearly interaction.


I think the DM should do a roll as soon as you are encountered with an illusion. Just like a sense motive check should when someone is bluffing. Or at least when there is SOMETHING that could give it away.

Illusion of a guy walking down the street somewhere among other real people? Don't bother, why wouldn't the guy do what everyone else is doing? Unless that guy is usually a cripple or somehow can't be there at that time. Then they should, with some effort, get a check.

You meet naked ladies in an underground dungeon telling you to stay with them forever? That's an instant check and shouldn't even have to be asked for, or even possible to fail. Maybe the successful result shouldn't be "There are no ladies!" at first glance, but the DM need to hint to the players that everyone thinks this is VERY odd and let them investigate further.

The player shouldn't be told to do the check either: "Roll for disbelieve/sense motive. 1? You don't notice anything." is just screaming for metagaming.

As noted by Rapanuii "...we encountered an illusion spell, and it was obvious...": this should be the result of a successful check.

Note: I'd say: looking is a form of interacting!

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Rub-Eta wrote:
Note: I'd say: looking is a form of interacting!

Every GM is entitled to do things their own way, but if "looking is interacting", then why does the book use the word "interact" and not "observe" or "see"? If that's the intent, wouldn't that just be a lot clearer?

(Aside: I think it's fair to say that having a conversation at range is interaction. Not all interaction has to be via touch. The essential quality of interaction is that the other responds to you in some way. If it just sits there ... you can hardly call it interactive.)


Erik Freund wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Note: I'd say: looking is a form of interacting!

Every GM is entitled to do things their own way, but if "looking is interacting", then why does the book use the word "interact" and not "observe" or "see"? If that's the intent, wouldn't that just be a lot clearer?

(Aside: I think it's fair to say that having a conversation at range is interaction. Not all interaction has to be via touch. The essential quality of interaction is that the other responds to you in some way. If it just sits there ... you can hardly call it interactive.)

I think it's simply because "interact" covers more basis. But again, totaly depends on what kind of illusion. If it is something believable I see no point in anybody getting a free check.


Erik Freund wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:


Now, that's talking about illusions of entirely fake things. Let's say that I happen to own a red scabbard, but I use an illusion to make it look like a blue scabbard. Simply touching the scabbard won't let you get a free saving throw, because "red paint" feels just like "blue paint". You'd have to dig deeper to see through that one.
What? No, if you interact with the "red paint" illusion you get a save. That it feels the same is not important. You're interacting with the illusion so your will power automatically tries to overcome the magic.

We're getting into GM-adjudication here. As for myself, I would say that "touching" is not the same thing as "interacting". A quick dictionary search for Interact: "act on each other: to have an effect on somebody or something else or on one another"

I would say that touching the paint of a scabbard doesn't fit that bill. You didn't "have an effect" on it. (Assuming normal, dry paint, etc.)

With a creature, touching is pretty much always interacting. Or if the wall is fake, and your hand goes through it, that's clearly interaction.

If you touch something you don't have an effect on it? Objects at rest and objects in motion and all that should apply.

Also, if you touch something it's clearly having an effect on you.


I'll gladly point out that every single Illusion spell is trumped by Goggles of Truesight. Although the most expensive eyewear (and quite frankly, the best), the fact that you can trivialize an entire school of magic with just a single item tells you its balance levels.

It's great in the lower levels because you're pitting foes against each other or misleading enemies to running into traps, and half the time they're stupid enough to believe it. It sucks in the later levels because of see above. Ultimately, that's how it's balanced; it's one of the strongest early game schools, but easily the weakest late-game school.

@ OP: Look, there's nothing wrong with being wary of everything around you at all times; if anything, it's encouraged, but he has to have some sense of security with his party members as well as the adventures occurring before his very eyes. I mean, how are you even in a party fighting baddies when you sit there and disbelieve everything going on around you? That party member is totally not gargling up blood from being stabbed in the stomach by that goblin 12 times. I definitely didn't coup de grace a hobo for his food that I think isn't even what it looks like. Oh, and that treasure chest containing all the loot? Yeah, I don't want anything to do with that pile of skeleton bodies waiting to be animated and tear you apart.

He's got to believe in something, because if you're going to play like that, I have a feeling the GM is going to require Wisdom checks for you to even do anything, because don't forget, your character is a part of everything, and when you disbelieve everything, you might as well think you don't exist either.

Liberty's Edge

Rapanuii wrote:

Alright, things have been enlightening and awesome due to being shown that video that I knew existed already, but is still sick as hell.

I am worried with how a gm rolls with illusions still, but I guess after the fact I get to attempt to argue things so rules get followed properly.

"Ehh, sound in the room wasn't subjected to being distorted by an echo from the large hole in the floor, which I should get a perception check for? Maybe I didn't fall to my death then?"

I generally have a gripe with perception checks not existing when they should, and how they're an exception for the enemy. No check needed, the enemy just waits to ambush you because they heard you coming, and they make no stealth check which you attempt to ever counter. It goes along with auto disbelief attempts, and it's not very fair. Just got to hope the gm is on top of things it seems.

It seem you have a gripe with your GM (justified or not, I don't know), not with illusion, or perception.

Liberty's Edge

Rub-Eta wrote:

I think the DM should do a roll as soon as you are encountered with an illusion. Just like a sense motive check should when someone is bluffing. Or at least when there is SOMETHING that could give it away.

Illusion of a guy walking down the street somewhere among other real people? Don't bother, why wouldn't the guy do what everyone else is doing? Unless that guy is usually a cripple or somehow can't be there at that time. Then they should, with some effort, get a check.

You meet naked ladies in an underground dungeon telling you to stay with them forever? That's an instant check and shouldn't even have to be asked for, or even possible to fail. Maybe the successful result shouldn't be "There are no ladies!" at first glance, but the DM need to hint to the players that everyone thinks this is VERY odd and let them investigate further.

The player shouldn't be told to do the check either: "Roll for disbelieve/sense motive. 1? You don't notice anything." is just screaming for metagaming.

As noted by Rapanuii "...we encountered an illusion spell, and it was obvious...": this should be the result of a successful check.

Note: I'd say: looking is a form of interacting!

Never heard of succubi?

(Link to the Paizo PRD as most images of them aren't safe for work/significant other/children)

I think they will give you a few free kisses to prove that they are real if you try to disbelieve them.


Rub-Eta wrote:
You meet naked ladies in an underground dungeon telling you to stay with them forever?

I believe that certain addresses in London allow you to buy that sort of service.

However, addressing the OP's initial question; saying 'I disbelieve everything therefore I should automatically see through illusions' just isn't going to cut it with most GMs. That is on the same lines as 'I sneak everywhere I go', or 'I am always checking for traps'.

There are situations where paranoia and distrust may be justified, but the only person who would act like that all the time is a lunatic. If you disbelieve and distrust everything (and professionally I've come across people who approach that level) then you cannot meaningfully interact with the real world. You would spend you entire life immobile and being cared for. In a medieval world you probably wouldn't last very long.

Being cynical and a little paranoid is one thing and might justify a few extra saving throws, but it would have to be played all the time at my table. I'd expect you to be wary of taking on contracts, opening boxes (or chests), not buying potions from strange vendors, and so on and so forth.


A lonely nymph?


Disbelieve everything? Sure, I'd let that fly.
Thing is, how I think you're coming into this is "and if my save doesn't make them go away they're real and I work with that" and that I wouldn't let fly.
Metagaming aside, the fact aside that you'd be, according to yourself, existing in a void, if you truly were convinced nothing is true you couldn't defend yourself. That goblin there? Totally not real. Then it pokes you with a spear. Totally not real. It repeats 'till you die. It totally wasn't real...
Even so you still wouldn't get saves just like that, you'd have to interact things.

Now, how you could do this in a reasonable and actually working way is, take it down a step.
Don't disbelieve everything, be suspicious and sceptical.
Think that person looks weird? Go touch them. That wall over there stick out? Go poke it.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Referring to people as "traps" is not OK here.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Erik Freund wrote:
And you have to interact with it like you believe it doesn't exist.
Silent Saturn wrote:
The on-paper rule for Will saves versus Illusions is that you don't get a Will save until you "interact" with the illusion, which is supposed to take a standard action.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where do these ideas about having to spend a standard action to "interact," or that "interacting" requires acting as if the illusion is false, come from? They're certainly not in the rules for illusions.


Erik Freund wrote:

Remember that by default, your character believes everything around him. He believes there is a floor, so he walks across it. He believes there's an orc in front of him, so he attacks it. Etc.

Simply saying "I disbelieve" without any associated action doesn't do anything. (i.e. doesn't give you a saving throw to disbelieve) You have to interact with the object. And you have to interact with it like you believe it doesn't exist.

So if you disbelieve a wall, that means you try to walk through it, which, if it's real, will cause you to bump your head and maybe tweak your nose.

If you disbelieve an orc, and thus try to wave your hand through it, and the orc happens to be real, the orc clearly deserves an AoO against you for dropping your guard like that.

Another extension: if an archer is shooting arrows at you, and you try to dodge (i.e. add your Dex bonus to AC), then you are believing in those arrows. If you willingly let an arrow hit you in the chest, then are you disbelieving it. (Via interaction.)

So that's why you can't (or at least shouldn't) say "I disbelieve everything." Because then you'd bump into a bunch of walls and then get killed from not dodging any monsters.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Clarification: A character doesn't actually have to interact with the illusion to actively disbelieve--it is sufficient to study the illusion carefully. For example, while normally a character wouldn't get a saving throw to disbelieve an illusionary orc until she, say, talked to or touched the orc, a skeptical character could study it carefully without otherwise interacting with it and receive a saving throw.

Generally, saying "I disbelieve" should be considered shorthand for "I study the object carefully". It simplifies things.

Edit: Somewhere was a developer clarification that "studying carefully" for this purpose was a standard action, though I'm not certain it shouldn't be a move action per the Perception rules. In any case, attempting to disbelieve everything a person sees would slow down the character's progress immensely.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / I disbelieve it's magic, in a young girls heart All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.