Letric |
I don't understand this spell.
I can create everything I'd like, right?
Will disbelief (if interacted with)
I was in this situation:
We were fighting a humanoid on a door. She was inside, 1 ally outside, the rest a bit further.
I created a wall on the door's space. DM made her and my allies roll for a will save. Does she actually get one right away?
If she does save, what happens? If she not seeing it anymore? Does the wall don't exist? Does it hinder visibility? What happens if she doesn't save?
What does interact with mean?
My wizard is like a CC/Support guy, and I really like using illusions, but if they will get a save to bypass it, might as well use another spell.
I'm not looking into breaking the game, more like trying to understand how this spell works.
On paper seems great, but is the wall actually there even though it's not real?
Jurassic Pratt |
The definition of interact is intentionally vague. The general consensus seems to be that simply looking at it isn't interacting with it, but that varies from person to person.
If I was the GM I'd say that she only gets a save if they reached out and touched the wall, which, if she had just seen it turn mysteriously from a door into a wall, she would probably do on her next turn.
Also, if they make the save the image ceases to exist for them. So she would see the door instead of the wall and it would not hinder visibility. If she fails her save then she continues to believe that there is a wall there and it would hinder sight. Its also important to realize that you're not creating a physical wall, it just looks like there is a wall there.
Edit: Huh, it appears that I may be wrong about it ceasing to exist for them on a save. So now I'm curious, would silent image still block line of sight for a character who saved against it?
Quintain |
If you have seen the movie "Thor", Loki invokes a "silent image" at the edge of the chasm that causes the Ice giant to try to attack it and fall off the cliff.
As for your questions:
She shouldn't get one right away (meaning on your turn). She would get one on the action when she performs an action that "interacts" with the image in the door's space.
However, if she has spellcraft and successfully identified that you were casting silent image, then a immediate saving throw is warranted.
If she saves, the image still exists, she just knows that it is an image. I would say that it should provide concealment (but not cover or full cover).
If she doesn't save, she thinks the image is real and acts as if the wall were real (similar to a reaction to you casting wall of stone).
Interact means just that, her action is affected by the presence of the wall. If she attacks it, trying to break it down, that is interaction. If she touches it, etc, etc etc.
A normal reaction to something appearing out of nowhere is probably to test for it's reality...in game this would be at the very least a move action (similar to deliberately looking for something using perception).
*Then* she would get a save. But she has to do something to interact with it first in order to get a save. If she just assumes it's real and doesn't interact with it (say..assuming it's a wall of stone).
Letric |
The definition of interact is intentionally vague. The general consensus seems to be that simply looking at it isn't interacting with it, but that varies from person to person.
If I was the GM I'd say that she only gets a save if they reached out and touched the wall, which, if she had just seen it turn mysteriously from a door into a wall, she would probably do on her next turn.
Also, if they make the save the image ceases to exist for them. So she would see the door instead of the wall. It would not hinder visibility. If she fails her save then she continues to believe that there is a wall there.
Ok, so interaction means wasting either a Move Action touching the Wall or a Standard one attacking it, if the GM thinks like that.
What I am confused about is this:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
If she touches the Wall, and fails a save, what happens when she touches the wall?
It clearly says it's unreal, cannot produce real effects, so her hand would just pass through, right? Even if she fails a save, she knows the wall ISN'T there, but she keeps seeing it?
How many saves does she get? Every time she touches the wall? Just once?
Another thing. Does this mean this spell can create quasi-terrain that I could use as a cover?
If I create a Wall in front of me, when do ranged enemies get a save? When they attack it? Using a move action?
If they fail their save, am I considered to having cover, getting +4 AC? I know this cover wouldn't affect +2 to Reflex because the wall is not real.
So, recapitulating:
- How many saves do enemies get to disbelief this Illusion? Every time they "interact with"it?
- Does seeing your hand/weapon/arrow pass through counts as automatic disbelief?
- If it doesn't, and you didn't save, does the wall impose a penalty on your ranged/melee attack because you keep seeing the wall?
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
I don't follow the example situation you provided.
Silent Image allows you to create "an object, creature, or force" as per the spell description. If you use the spell to create an illusionary wall, it appears as a wall to anyone who sees it. However, if they interact with the wall in anyway that compromises its true nature (like touching it, studying it closely, or throwing something at it), the creature gets a Will save to disbelieve. If they disbelieve it, the illusion appears as a ghostly outline to that individual. If they fail to disbelieve it, they still believe it's a wall, though perhaps with special properties (in the case they do something obvious like throw something at it).
It's best to think of a figment (the type of illusion that Silent Image is) as a hologram.
Silent image is a really powerful spell that's limited only by your creativity.
Letric |
I don't follow the example situation you provided.
Ok. So if you save, you can see through it, know it's not real and can act as if it wasn't there.
If you attack it, touch it and fail your save? The wall is there, but you know you can pass through it, but since you can't see through it, your attacks will be penalized. Right?
Nathan Monson |
ok, the Core Rules say that you don't get a save by just looking at an illusion. (page 211, saving throws and disbelief)
If an enemy saves Vs an illusion it no longer blocks line of sight, they see it as a translucent outline.
I believe an enemy gets a new save every time they interact with the illusion; but I'm not sure of that. I would rule that if she fails her save the enemy stops her hand on the edge of the wall, because she's 100% sure that the wall is real. seeing a hand or weapon pas through doesn't give automatic disbelief, the most I would give is a bonus on their saves, as though a friend had told them that the wall was fake.
I don't know about a penalty, id say probably not, but that's just my opinion, if you can convince your GM otherwise, good luck.
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See this is similar to how I've always ruled it, but I'm having a hard time finding where its actually stated what happens to a figment when you make your save versus it.
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.
Jurassic Pratt |
Jurassic Pratt wrote:See this is similar to how I've always ruled it, but I'm having a hard time finding where its actually stated what happens to a figment when you make your save versus it.Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief) wrote: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.
Thank you TriOmega, I was beginning to doubt myself.
Letric |
Cyrad wrote:If they disbelieve it, the illusion appears as a ghostly outline to that individual.See this is similar to how I've always ruled it, but I'm having a hard time finding where its actually stated what happens to a figment when you make your save versus it.
From Rules of the Game, DnD
A figment is unreal and cannot produce real effects; it can't deal damage, support weight, provide nutrition, or act as a barrier (except that a visible figment can block line of sight). You can use a figment to fool opponents, but you can't harm them or affect them directly. For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.
Found it!
So, touching it is Automatic Disbelief, as well as it's attacking it.
It can be good as a Wall/Cover against ranged enemies. Every enemy will have to waste a move action to disbelieve it, or at least one and tell the other that it's not real so they get a save.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Cyrad wrote:I don't follow the example situation you provided.
Ok. So if you save, you can see through it, know it's not real and can act as if it wasn't there.
If you attack it, touch it and fail your save? The wall is there, but you know you can pass through it, but since you can't see through it, your attacks will be penalized. Right?
Correct.
Greymist |
Under the circumstance described by the OP, a saving throw might be appropriate immediately, unlike if the enemy just came upon the image. A PC and the enemy were fighting in the doorway when suddenly a wall appeared next to the enemy -- was there a light outside that is still increasing the light level in the room; is there noise outside that would be blocked by a real wall, but not by an illusion; is there a wind blowing through, does the enemy have scent (which is not blocked by a visual illusion)? Factors like these could justify an immediate save. Absent such special circumstances, you default to "usually do not receive saving throws ... until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."
Quintain |
If she touches the Wall, and fails a save, what happens when she touches the wall?
Ever heard of "ghost pain"? I would say that she "feels" the tactile sense that the wall is there, by tricking her mind into thinking she is feeling the wall. She would stop her hand at the edge of where the wall is naturally, because she thinks the wall is there.
She keeps seeing the wall on a failed save.
How many saves does she get? Every time she touches the wall? Just once?
This is up to DM adjudication. However, illusions tend to be meta-gamed, and often enough deliberate "incidental actions" always seem to allow more than one save.
Another thing. Does this mean this spell can create quasi-terrain that I could use as a cover?
If I create a Wall in front of me, when do ranged enemies get a save? When they attack it? Using a move action?
If they fail their save, am I considered to having cover, getting +4 AC? I know this cover wouldn't affect +2 to Reflex because the wall is not real.
Illusions definitely can be used for concealment, but not cover. Cover is a physical blockage, concealment is visual, but immaterial.
So, recapitulating:- How many saves do enemies get to disbelief this Illusion?- How many saves do enemies get to disbelief this Illusion? Every time they "interact with"it?
- Does seeing your hand/weapon/arrow pass through counts as automatic disbelief?
- If it doesn't, and you didn't save, does the wall impose a penalty on your ranged/melee attack because you keep seeing the wall?
See above. Up to the DM. There is no "automatic disbelief", but there is a bonus based on circumstances after interacting with an illusion.
Pizza Lord |
The enemy would not automatically disbelieve your illusion, she has to study it carefully, taking an action, or interact with it as part of another action. If she does disbelieve it, then she can still see where the illusionary wall is supposed to be as a faint or ghostly outline but it otherwise doesn't hinder her seeing through it.
Even if she recognized that you were casting silent image that doesn't let her get a free save when the wall appears or even on her turn. It does give her a believable and reasonable excuse for her next action, which could be either to just declare she's studying the wall because she thinks it's an illusion or to just pop a fireball through it without bothering to disbelieve. She can't target someone she can't see, so it's like firing blind or at an invisible target if she saw what square they were in on the other side of the door and they haven't moved, but that's no a problem for a fireball, of course. If it turns out she was wrong about it being an illusion, then she's in trouble when the fireball hits the wall.
If someone else who has successfully disbelieved the illusion (the caster for instance, trying to let his allies know) communicates that is it such (and she hears it, because there isn't really a wall between them) she can get a +4 bonus to disbelief (but that still takes an action to disbelieve/study or an action that interacts with the wall. Or she could decide to just believe that it's an illusion without checking and act however she wants: try to pass through it, attack through it, etc. though she doesn't get to see past the wall without disbelieving it.
It all comes down to DM judgement based on the situation and what's reasonable to the character in that situation. For instance, if you had just cast the silent image over the open doorway before the enemy came by, (assuming she didn't know there was a doorway there because it's her place) she would have no reasonable excuse to suddenly stop and study the wall. Unless there was a noticeable breeze from your side or no light source on her side but one from your side was spilling through the doorway (something anyone not actively searching while they passes by would notice) then no save, no check, nothing.
In your example, neither the enemy nor your allies get to see through the wall when it appears (unless it appears on them). If before hand or lots of times in the past you've created illusionary walls and even told your allies that any walls that appear after you cast a spell are illusions, they still don't get to automatically see through them. It would prevent accusations of metagaming if they just ran or charged through the illusions, but they don't get to automatically disbelieve them (until they actually ran through them).
TriOmegaZero |
Quintain wrote:According to Rules of the game there is automatic disbelief, will check with my dm though
See above. Up to the DM. There is no "automatic disbelief", but there is a bonus based on circumstances after interacting with an illusion.
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.
However, it is up to the GM what counts as 'proof an illusion isn't real'.
TriOmegaZero |
"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."
That would be a reasonable call, yes.
Charon's Little Helper |
GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.
Maybe - but if the caster knew that people could do that, it'd be easy to break that meta.
Example:
Caster A casts Minor Image of whatever. At the same time, a coordinated and stealthed Caster B casts Summon Monster.
Player X IDs Caster A's Minor Image and therefore has 'proof' that the summoned monster is just his illusion, does Caster B's summoned monster get to coup de grace Player X who is ignoring it?
IF you make the call that IDing a spell counts as proof that it is an illusion, then you would pretty much have to rule in favor of the coup de grace in the above example.
TriOmegaZero |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Maybe - but if the caster knew that people could do that, it'd be easy to break that meta.GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.
That is irrelevant to the point that the GM could make that call.
Charon's Little Helper |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:That is irrelevant to the point that the GM could make that call.TriOmegaZero wrote:Maybe - but if the caster knew that people could do that, it'd be easy to break that meta.GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.
Okay... but every rules discussion is irrelevant if the GM makes a different call.
Slithery D |
TriOmegaZero wrote:GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.Maybe - but if the caster knew that people could do that, it'd be easy to break that meta.
Example:
Caster A casts Minor Image of whatever. At the same time, a coordinated and stealthed Caster B casts Summon Monster.
Player X IDs Caster A's Minor Image and therefore has 'proof' that the summoned monster is just his illusion, does Caster B's summoned monster get to coup de grace Player X who is ignoring it?
IF you make the call that IDing a spell counts as proof that it is an illusion, then you would pretty much have to rule in favor of the coup de grace in the above example.
No.
The defect of not needing a saving throw is that you would automatically pass and the illusion would appear transparent. So since you know it's an illusion, and it didn't go transparent, you actually know that it's NOT an illusion and must be a summons. Or a previously invisible creature. Or something, but definitely not an illusion.
TriOmegaZero |
TriOmegaZero wrote:It's in the rules forum. Why would it be in the rules forum if its not a rules discussion?Charon's Little Helper wrote:Okay... but every rules discussion is irrelevant if the GM makes a different call.This wasn't a rules discussion.
Because conversations don't stay on topic.
Finlanderboy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.
I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.
To the best of your knowledge you believe that is an illusion spell. Now a certain bloodline can make you believe one spell is another if you fail the check enough. So I cast wall of stone, you fail and think it is minor image. What happens?
The fact is you can be wrong with knowledge checks and getting a enough to identify it means you think it is a an illusion to the best of your knowledge. But you could be wrong.
IF a DM made this call I would say it is very wrong, but their call to make.
Diego Rossi |
I don't follow the example situation you provided.
Silent Image allows you to create "an object, creature, or force" as per the spell description. If you use the spell to create an illusionary wall, it appears as a wall to anyone who sees it. However, if they interact with the wall in anyway that compromises its true nature (like touching it, studying it closely, or throwing something at it), the creature gets a Will save to disbelieve. If they disbelieve it, the illusion appears as a ghostly outline to that individual. If they fail to disbelieve it, they still believe it's a wall, though perhaps with special properties (in the case they do something obvious like throw something at it).
It's best to think of a figment (the type of illusion that Silent Image is) as a hologram.
Silent image is a really powerful spell that's limited only by your creativity.
There are a few other "interacting" options: being attacked through the wall, seeing people move through it, recognizing the spell that was cast or having senses that allow you to notice that the wall is fake.
Illusions are problematic spells and they are powerful or weak depending on interpretation of the rules that aren't shared by everyone.Note that silent image say:
"This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."
So:
1) the illusion is only visual, as soon as someone touche it it realize that it has no substance. If you are superimposing the image of a wall on an actual door the person touching it will feel the door and get a saving throw to notice that what he see and what he touch aren't the same thing.
If superimpose the image of a wall to a open doorframe and he touch it he realize that it is empty space, at that point the save is automatic.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
2) you can reproduce only what you have experienced. If the enemy has a form of blindsense or blindsight it is almost granted that your illusion will fail.
Diego Rossi |
Cyrad wrote:If they disbelieve it, the illusion appears as a ghostly outline to that individual.See this is similar to how I've always ruled it, but I'm having a hard time finding where its actually stated what happens to a figment when you make your save versus it.
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.
Diego Rossi |
TriOmegaZero wrote:GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.Maybe - but if the caster knew that people could do that, it'd be easy to break that meta.
Example:
Caster A casts Minor Image of whatever. At the same time, a coordinated and stealthed Caster B casts Summon Monster.
Player X IDs Caster A's Minor Image and therefore has 'proof' that the summoned monster is just his illusion, does Caster B's summoned monster get to coup de grace Player X who is ignoring it?
IF you make the call that IDing a spell counts as proof that it is an illusion, then you would pretty much have to rule in favor of the coup de grace in the above example.
You don't get a coup de grace simply because someone is ignoring you. At most you get a sneak attack.
Teh requirement for a CdG is a helpless opponent.Diego Rossi |
TriOmegaZero wrote:GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.
To the best of your knowledge you believe that is an illusion spell. Now a certain bloodline can make you believe one spell is another if you fail the check enough. So I cast wall of stone, you fail and think it is minor image. What happens?
The fact is you can be wrong with knowledge checks and getting a enough to identify it means you think it is a an illusion to the best of your knowledge. But you could be wrong.
IF a DM made this call I would say it is very wrong, but their call to make.
Can you link this ability? I doubt it will make your wall of stone appear as a mirror image.
Finlanderboy |
Finlanderboy wrote:Can you link this ability? I doubt it will make your wall of stone appear as a mirror image.TriOmegaZero wrote:GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.
To the best of your knowledge you believe that is an illusion spell. Now a certain bloodline can make you believe one spell is another if you fail the check enough. So I cast wall of stone, you fail and think it is minor image. What happens?
The fact is you can be wrong with knowledge checks and getting a enough to identify it means you think it is a an illusion to the best of your knowledge. But you could be wrong.
IF a DM made this call I would say it is very wrong, but their call to make.
rakshasa bloodline
Bloodline Arcana: Add half your sorcerer level to the Spellcraft DC for others to identify spells you cast. If their checks fail by 5 or more, they mistakenly believe you are casting an entirely different spell (selected by you when you begin casting).
If They got my spellcasting wrong and I said I am not casting wall of stone, it is silent image.
Now keep in mind this is very easy to achieve per the spellcraft section:
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.
It is easy to get perception penalties.
TOZ |
TriOmegaZero wrote:I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.
Then argue with Rednal, as he's the one that put it forth.
I called it reasonable, not correct.
Diego Rossi |
Diego Rossi wrote:Finlanderboy wrote:Can you link this ability? I doubt it will make your wall of stone appear as a mirror image.TriOmegaZero wrote:GM Rednal wrote:"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."That would be a reasonable call, yes.I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.
To the best of your knowledge you believe that is an illusion spell. Now a certain bloodline can make you believe one spell is another if you fail the check enough. So I cast wall of stone, you fail and think it is minor image. What happens?
The fact is you can be wrong with knowledge checks and getting a enough to identify it means you think it is a an illusion to the best of your knowledge. But you could be wrong.
IF a DM made this call I would say it is very wrong, but their call to make.
rakshasa bloodline
Bloodline Arcana: Add half your sorcerer level to the Spellcraft DC for others to identify spells you cast. If their checks fail by 5 or more, they mistakenly believe you are casting an entirely different spell (selected by you when you begin casting).
If They got my spellcasting wrong and I said I am not casting wall of stone, it is silent image.
Now keep in mind this is very easy to achieve per the spellcraft section:
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.It is easy to get perception penalties.
Ah, ok, it foil the spellcraft check. Yes, if you cast silent image and they fail the spellcraft check they will think you have cast wall of stone.
I thought, wrongly, that you were saying that it would foil you into believing and perceiving a different spell effect.GM Rednal |
@Finlanderboy: Consider it this way.
"I am a 15th level Wizard with a high Intelligence and max ranks in Spellcraft. I literally cannot fail to recognize that my 1st Level apprentice is casting Silent Image when he does so. When I watch him cast this spell and see something new appear from thin air, how likely is it that I am going to believe it is real, and how likely am I to regard my apprentice's casting of a spell as reasonable proof that he did, in fact, create an illusion?"
Charon's Little Helper |
@Finlanderboy: Consider it this way.
"I am a 15th level Wizard with a high Intelligence and max ranks in Spellcraft. I literally cannot fail to recognize that my 1st Level apprentice is casting Silent Image when he does so. When I watch him cast this spell and see something new appear from thin air, how likely is it that I am going to believe it is real, and how likely am I to regard my apprentice's casting of a spell as reasonable proof that he did, in fact, create an illusion?"
You might very reasonably suspect that it's fake, and are free to react like it's fake, but that doesn't qualify as proof that it's fake.
Finlanderboy |
GM Rednal wrote:You might very reasonably suspect that it's fake, and are free to react like it's fake, but that doesn't qualify as proof that it's fake.@Finlanderboy: Consider it this way.
"I am a 15th level Wizard with a high Intelligence and max ranks in Spellcraft. I literally cannot fail to recognize that my 1st Level apprentice is casting Silent Image when he does so. When I watch him cast this spell and see something new appear from thin air, how likely is it that I am going to believe it is real, and how likely am I to regard my apprentice's casting of a spell as reasonable proof that he did, in fact, create an illusion?"
I agree with Charon completely. Heck I would even suspect providing the +4 bonus to save being told it was fake. Now the master wizard can throw a rock at the illusion. Or interact with it in anyway to recognize it as an illusion.
Plus the fact that the spell created something well beyond his ability other than illusion pretty much determines success.
Your ruling gets in the way of the Rakshasa bloodline power.