Would a Touch Spell Discharge if it hit an illusion?


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

A Wizard hits an illusion he has not disbelieved with a shocking grasp. Should the spell discharge or not?


It should discharge.


Yes, it should discharge.


It would discharge and count as interacting with the illusion because of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Um...I disagree with everyone else. You didn't actually touch anything.

Maybe if it was a [Shadow] illusion, since they are part real, but waving your hand through a make-believe image isn't the same.

You must touch something to discharge the spell. You didn't touch anything, so it isn't discharged.

But it would count as interacting with the illusion.


It is your conscious choice to disarchae a spell or not. Holding a charge and touching anything (like scratching your head) doesn´t disarche a spell either. If an illusion fools you and you attack it, _you_ discharge the spell at the target. (Note: Illusions have an AC of 10...)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is not necessarily conscious discharging, because touching something besides yourself will discharge the charge. Whether you want it to or not.

Can anyone explain why a charge should discharge if you hit an illusion?

Only a shadow spell is at least partially real, so otherwise hitting something that isn't there isn't actually hitting anything. Seems to me like it shouldn't discharge.


Claxon wrote:

It is not necessarily conscious discharging, because touching something besides yourself will discharge the charge. Whether you want it to or not.

Can anyone explain why a charge should discharge if you hit an illusion?

Only a shadow spell is at least partially real, so otherwise hitting something that isn't there isn't actually hitting anything. Seems to me like it shouldn't discharge.

You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:
Claxon wrote:

It is not necessarily conscious discharging, because touching something besides yourself will discharge the charge. Whether you want it to or not.

Can anyone explain why a charge should discharge if you hit an illusion?

Only a shadow spell is at least partially real, so otherwise hitting something that isn't there isn't actually hitting anything. Seems to me like it shouldn't discharge.

You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.

Incorrect. The spell goes off as soon as you touch something, regardless of whether you want it to or not. You cannot choose NOT to discharge the spell when touching something.

Therefore saying it is your choice is unequivocally wrong.

I'm siding with, its not real, there's nothing there, touch spells don't go off by wiggling your fingers in the air. Maybe on one of the shadow spells that are 20% real, but definitely none of the image spells.


PFSRD wrote:

Touch

You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

The illusion in question is a figment, and not a shadow, to my mind although you can hit a figment - AC 10+size modifier - you would still not touch it because it is to quote the figment rules under illusion "figments and glamers are unreal".

Grand Lodge

It would discharge if he touched a mirror image, which is also a figment.


Broken Prince wrote:
The illusion in question is a figment, and not a shadow, to my mind although you can hit a figment - AC 10+size modifier - you would still not touch it because it is to quote the figment rules under illusion "figments and glamers are unreal".
mirror image wrote:
Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.

It depends, with for example mirror image, if the attacker had not disbelieved mirror image and uses a touch attack to destroy a figment, you'll discharge your touch attack.


Starglim wrote:
It would discharge if he touched a mirror image, which is also a figment.

Because it specifically calls out as such. Do any of the others?

Thats actually a point against your position because if it did that with all figments the line would be completely unnecessary. So this must be an exception to the rule, otherwise the line is completely redundant with all other spells of its type.

The Exchange

It's calling out that one image disappears, not the whole spell, so you could as easily argue that that line implies that ordinarily the discharge would undo the entire spell. (I have no opinion either way, so I'm watching the debate with interest; I'm just saying that the specific citation in mirror image isn't very helpful in determining an answer.)


Mirror Image (and Shocking Image) is to my knowledge the only Figment spells that are specifically designed to only be used in combat - therefore it makes sense that the spells have more elaborate text describing how it interacts with the combat rules.

That the general Figment text doesn't mention touch attacks doesn't necessarily mean that Mirror Image is an exception to an unwritten rule regarding touch attacks. On the other hand, it doesn't mean it's not an exception. Come to think of it, the figment rules could probably benefit from being be fleshed out a bit.

It also made me think of something I've never considered before... Can you disbelieve Mirror Image? If yes, how does that work?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My fighter usually disbelieves by using Blind-Fight. It seems to work about 75% of the time. ;)


Kudaku wrote:

Mirror Image (and Shocking Image) is to my knowledge the only Figment spells that are specifically designed to only be used in combat - therefore it makes sense that the spells have more elaborate text describing how it interacts with the combat rules.

That the general Figment text doesn't mention touch attacks doesn't necessarily mean that Mirror Image is an exception to an unwritten rule regarding touch attacks. On the other hand, it doesn't mean it's not an exception. Come to think of it, the figment rules could probably benefit from being be fleshed out a bit.

It also made me think of something I've never considered before... Can you disbelieve Mirror Image? If yes, how does that work?

Its one of the reasons that illusion is considered for the most part one of the worst schools out there. There are no prescribed rules on what it will actually do.

So whether the orcs keep walking past the fake wall you just conjured up or "oh they're not paying attention, they accidentally wander into the wall and it doesn't matter if they disbelieve it or not, its not real so they're on the other side."


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Its one of the reasons that illusion is considered for the most part one of the worst schools out there. There are no prescribed rules on what it will actually do.

So whether the orcs keep walking past the fake wall you just conjured up or "oh they're not paying attention, they accidentally wander into the wall and it doesn't matter if they disbelieve it or not, its not real so they're on the other side."

That is a fair point. Judging by Major Image's description ("The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.") and the AC note in the general figment description I'd say you could actually have a protracted fight with a figment if your will save is poor enough.

However I'm not sure if that is meant to only cover ranged attacks? Presumably a melee attacker would automatically disbelieve when he realizes that there's no physical resistance whenever his blows would connect? Or?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rikkan wrote:
if the attacker had not disbelieved mirror image

Just for the record, you cannot disbelieve a Mirror Image. I guess you could but even then it is still there and will have the same effect as per the spell description.


Claxon wrote:

It is not necessarily conscious discharging, because touching something besides yourself will discharge the charge. Whether you want it to or not.

Can anyone explain why a charge should discharge if you hit an illusion?

Only a shadow spell is at least partially real, so otherwise hitting something that isn't there isn't actually hitting anything. Seems to me like it shouldn't discharge.

Gotta say I would rule this way as well.

The Exchange

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
It's one of the reasons that illusion is considered for the most part one of the worst schools out there. There are no prescribed rules on what it will actually do.

Players in my campaigns tend to consider it a very good, strong school for exactly that reason. But I agree the school's power varies a lot based on the GM's particular approach.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Broken Prince wrote:
A Wizard hits an illusion he has not disbelieved with a shocking grasp. Should the spell discharge or not?

If it's not Mirror Image, what spell do you have in mind? There's a lot of variety in that school and specifics do make a difference.


I'd say it would, if the caster was convinced he was actually touching something (ie, fooled by the illusion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:
You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.

That is false. Look up the rules on Holding A Charge.

If you bump into someone, or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shadow/quasi-real illusions - yes
virtually any other illusion - no

There is nothing to physically touch. Even with the Mirror Image spell, you would wave your sparkly hands through the image but the spell wouldn't discharge because you haven't touched anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about... it doesn't discharge but the caster thinks it did... because illusion?

This is sort of like a fighter taking a swing. Sure, his sword goes right through the illusion but if he fails his save (for interacting with the illusion), he doesn't get to say "hey, it doesn't matter I rolled a 1 on that Will save, my sword went through and I saw it so it's obviously an illusion."

That fighter doesn't get to shift targets for the rest of his iteratives because "I know this one's fake".

Same applies to the caster. The spell remains on his hand, and he will happily cast something else next round, losing the spell. Unless he accidentally touches someone else, zapping them.


Zedth wrote:
Claxon wrote:
You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.

That is false. Look up the rules on Holding A Charge.

If you bump into someone, or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.

Umm...this confused me for a second cause I didn't say that. You should edit your quote here to be show it's from Taube, the indivudal who wrote it.


Anguish wrote:

How about... it doesn't discharge but the caster thinks it did... because illusion?

This is sort of like a fighter taking a swing. Sure, his sword goes right through the illusion but if he fails his save (for interacting with the illusion), he doesn't get to say "hey, it doesn't matter I rolled a 1 on that Will save, my sword went through and I saw it so it's obviously an illusion."

That fighter doesn't get to shift targets for the rest of his iteratives because "I know this one's fake".

Same applies to the caster. The spell remains on his hand, and he will happily cast something else next round, losing the spell. Unless he accidentally touches someone else, zapping them.

Actually, depending on the GM taking a swing a clearly connecting but having no injury appear might count as evidence that it is not real. In which case, per the rules of illusion a check is no longer necessary. At the very least they should get a +4 bonus on their save.

The real question he is whether "hitting" an illusory opponent counts as proof that it isn't real or not. Surely, moving through an illusory wall counts as proof the wall isn't real. So I have hard time saying that if your attack is higher than the AC of the illusion that you wouldn't notice that it wasn't real.


Major Image wrote:
The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.

The description of Major Image seems to imply that you can strike an illusion without realizing that it is, in fact, an illusion. Of course, they could be referencing to a strike where the striker wouldn't experience the lack of feedback, such as by firing an arrow on an illusion.

Zedth wrote:
Even with the Mirror Image spell, you would wave your sparkly hands through the image but the spell wouldn't discharge because you haven't touched anything.

I urge you to reread the thread. Mirror Image has been covered in detail already.


Zedth wrote:


If you bump into someone,

Correct. You touching someone, either intentionally or unintentionally will discharge the spell.

Zedth wrote:


or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.

Incorrect. An enemy attacking you with unarmed or natural attacks does not get zapped by your held spell.


My apologies Claxon!

Spoiler:
Claxon wrote:
Zedth wrote:
Claxon wrote:
You either hold the spell or discharge the spell. The is nothing unconscious or accidental about it. It is all up to you, the user/caster of the touch spell.

That is false. Look up the rules on Holding A Charge.

If you bump into someone, or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.
Umm...this confused me for a second cause I didn't say that. You should edit your quote here to be show it's from Taube, the indivudal who wrote it.


Kudaku wrote:
I urge you to reread the thread. Mirror Image has been covered in detail already.

*edited* The thread discussion is irrelevant. It is the spell text that trumps my point, which I concede was wrong.

bbangerter wrote:
Zedth wrote:

or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.

Incorrect. An enemy attacking you with unarmed or natural attacks does not get zapped by your held spell.

Citation please? I would certainly call being touched by a natural weapon an unintentional touch.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Claxon wrote:


Actually, depending on the GM taking a swing a clearly connecting but having no injury appear might count as evidence that it is not real. In which case, per the rules of illusion a check is no longer necessary. At the very least they should get a +4 bonus on their save.

The real question he is whether "hitting" an illusory opponent counts as proof that it isn't real or not. Surely, moving through an illusory wall counts as proof the wall isn't real. So I have hard time saying that if your attack is higher than the AC of the illusion that you wouldn't notice that it wasn't real.

As quoted above, that's covered, at least under major image:

"The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately."

So if the illusion is set to autopilot, you strike it, it vanishes, no disbelief needed.

But, if the illusionist is paying attention and has the image take "damage," you get no extra clues that anything is amiss. Although that would count as interacting so allow a save.

So depending on whether your GM rules that your character knows he has an active touch spell up or not, you might presume the thing you just zapped used up your charge and cast again.

So I guess personally I come down on the side of "you don't lose the charge but you might think you have."


The illusion is not really there. To use a real life example if I am hallucinatingand I reach out I am only touch the air. Illusions are the same way. Discharging only works if you actually touch something not just because you believe you did.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The illusion is not really there. To use a real life example if I am hallucinatingand I reach out I am only touch the air. Illusions are the same way. Discharging only works if you actually touch something not just because you believe you did.

You ARE touching something if you strike a mirror image. The fact that the thing you're touching has no solidity is irrelevant. On the bright side, it's a spectacular way to pop an image.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The illusion is not really there. To use a real life example if I am hallucinatingand I reach out I am only touch the air. Illusions are the same way. Discharging only works if you actually touch something not just because you believe you did.
You ARE touching something if you strike a mirror image. The fact that the thing you're touching has no solidity is irrelevant. On the bright side, it's a spectacular way to pop an image.

I knew mirror image might be an exception, and I was in a debate about this. I was speaking in general. I will have to find that debate, but I do believe a conclusion was reached was mirror image and interaction with touch spells.


magic section wrote:
Because figments and glamers are unreal..

They are not real so you can not really touch them.

How do they pop?

It's magic.


Zedth wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
I urge you to reread the thread. Mirror Image has been covered in detail already.

*edited* The thread discussion is irrelevant. It is the spell text that trumps my point, which I concede was wrong.

bbangerter wrote:
Zedth wrote:

or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.

Incorrect. An enemy attacking you with unarmed or natural attacks does not get zapped by your held spell.
Citation please? I would certainly call being touched by a natural weapon an unintentional touch.

There is none, its a fight thats been going on in the forums, one I participated in for a fair time, that is solely up to the individual GM. There is no ruling either way and arguments for both.


wraithstrike wrote:
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The illusion is not really there. To use a real life example if I am hallucinatingand I reach out I am only touch the air. Illusions are the same way. Discharging only works if you actually touch something not just because you believe you did.
You ARE touching something if you strike a mirror image. The fact that the thing you're touching has no solidity is irrelevant. On the bright side, it's a spectacular way to pop an image.
I knew mirror image might be an exception, and I was in a debate about this. I was speaking in general. I will have to find that debate, but I do believe a conclusion was reached was mirror image and interaction with touch spells.

Mirror image does consume touch spells, as stated specifically in the spell description. That's generally why I consider it to be an exception, not a flat statement that all figments are such.

Shadow Lodge

Is it possible that, if you touch an illusion and make a will save to disbelieve, fail that save, that you then believe it's not an illusion, but the touch spell refuses to discharge (and you don't know why - it's up to you to guess)?

Liberty's Edge

It's an interesting question. As a corollary to this, if a caster were "threatened" by an illusion (having failed a Will save), should the caster have to cast defensively to avoid the perceived AoO, and if failed, lose the spell?

As previously noted, the illusion isn't real and isn't there, so it can't do any actual harm, but the caster thinks it's real.

At what point does the caster trying to touch with a held charge or cast against something that isn't there automatically save against the illusion because the desired or expected outcome didn't occur?


off-topic, but side topic referred to above

Spoiler:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Zedth wrote:

or someone touches you, the held spell/charge will be used on whoever touched you.

Incorrect. An enemy attacking you with unarmed or natural attacks does not get zapped by your held spell.
Citation please? I would certainly call being touched by a natural weapon an unintentional touch. There is none, its a fight thats been going on in the forums, one I participated in for a fair time, that is solely up to the individual GM. There is no ruling either way and arguments for both.

"If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." citation

I would say that is pretty well cut and dry. What citations can be shown to the contrary?

Grand Lodge

HangarFlying wrote:

It's an interesting question. As a corollary to this, if a caster were "threatened" by an illusion (having failed a Will save), should the caster have to cast defensively to avoid the perceived AoO, and if failed, lose the spell?

As previously noted, the illusion isn't real and isn't there, so it can't do any actual harm, but the caster thinks it's real.

A caster never has to cast defensively, barring some sort of compulsion. If he chooses to do so and fails, he loses the spell, even if there's no threat.

edit: If he didn't cast defensively and an intelligent caster was running the illusion, the caster might choose for the illusion to take the AoO, then if the caster successfully hit, I would think a concentration check against the illusion's save DC would be in order (as well as another Will save).


Zedth wrote:

off-topic, but side topic referred to above

** spoiler omitted **

The argument is such that "touching" someone is not the same as being touched and the difference is a gamist term where touching someone has a specific connotation.

I find it a ridiculous notion as such, but that generally boils down to why many believe it does not discharge when you are touched rather than the other way around.

So basically 2 sets of people are looking at what you just cited and interpreting in a realistic vs gamist fashion.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Would a Touch Spell Discharge if it hit an illusion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.