Spellcraft identification vs. Illusion spells as "proof"


Rules Questions

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Silverhand wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from trying to move through every wall you see on the off-chance ones an illusion.
I disagree here. If I failed my save (thus, I believe it's a real wall), I can't just say, "well, just in case it's not real I'll try walking through it anyway". Because I failed my save I believe it's real. By just deciding to try walking through it after I failed my save, I'm intentionally circumventing the rules and ignoring my saving throw failure.

Do you let people who've failed a save sit on an illusionary chair without falling through or realizing they're actually squatting in empty space? It's the same thing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I let people do whatever they need to do to keep to the rules and not break suspension of disbelief.

As to how a GM should run this, has been discussed in-depth before.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, WotC had a four part article series entitled: "All about Illusions" that does answer quite a few of the problems on this thread.

For example, spending time poking around an illusion (like an illusory wall) would eventually be enough to allow for disbelief. But the action and time must be taken. It's not instantaneous.

Also, hitting an illusion would automatically disprove the illusion, but illusions have AC, so you have to hit the AC of the illusion or else you'd fail to disbelieve.

Please find parts 1-4 in the links below.
VERY illuminating and lends credence to some of the folks who I'd initially opposed on this thread.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a

Note: as per the original question posed, the Spellcraft of an illusion spell being cast is not mentioned in the above articles. Interaction remains the prerequisite for almost all cases.


That discusses mirage arcana, a glamer. Silent/Major Image are figments.

Quote:
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Quote:

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).

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.

You can't have individualized aspects to a figment. Figments and glamers work differently.


Silverhand wrote:
Also, hitting an illusion would automatically disprove the illusion, but illusions have AC, so you have to hit the AC of the illusion or else you'd fail to disbelieve.

Does shooting an arrow through the illusory wall not count as hitting it? Does the archer have to specifically test the wall with an arrow instead? Even with that, that is still the exact outcome I described before. Archer shoots the wall (instead of at a square he thought an enemy was at) and thus succeeds in automatically disproving the illusion. Wall has what, a whopping 10 - (Size mod), I think he'll hit it.


Silverhand wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I've had rogues who buy chalk, and draw it down the wall in dungeons, both to prevent getting lost/backtracked, and because they will find a fake wall when their hand goes through it instead of drawing a line.
But why are they drawing a line right up to the wall? :)And if they did, they'd still have to roll to disbelieve their senses because they have minds that can be fooled. If they failed their save, they'd think, "that was weird, I'm losing my mind" not, "It's an illusion!" because that would mean they're getting the benefit of a successful save instead of a failed one.

They literally said, "In a dungeon, unless in a fight, I draw a line on the left hand wall and mark it with arrows to indicate which way I'm going. I keep the line unbroken, and don't take the chalk off the wall unless we're in a fight when I drop it."

If there was a hallway to the left, hidden by a silent image of a wall, they automatically are going to put their hand through it while trying to draw their line of chalk down the wall.

Similar to a pit trap hidden by a silent imaged floor. Probing the foor ahead of you or searching as you go would give you a save, putting your foot through the floor is automatic.

From the articles you linked:

Quote:
According to the Player's Handbook, if you're faced with proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve the illusion without making a saving throw. The rules give a few examples of "proof" that an illusion isn't real. If you step on an illusory floor and fall through, you know that floor isn't real. Likewise, if you poke around an illusory floor and your hand (or the implement you're using as a probe) goes through the floor, you know the floor isn't real.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
Silverhand wrote:
Also, hitting an illusion would automatically disprove the illusion, but illusions have AC, so you have to hit the AC of the illusion or else you'd fail to disbelieve.
Does shooting an arrow through the illusory wall not count as hitting it? Does the archer have to specifically test the wall with an arrow instead? Even with that, that is still the exact outcome I described before. Archer shoots the wall (instead of at a square he thought an enemy was at) and thus succeeds in automatically disproving the illusion. Wall has what, a whopping 10 - (Size mod), I think he'll hit it.

If the Archer is told, "hey it's an illusion" the archer would have to spend some sort of action to disbelieve but would get the +4 benefit to the saving throw. Upon spending the appropriate action (move action? Not sure...) they succeeded in their saving throw, the figment would become a translucent outline and the archer would fire through unhindered.

If the archer was not told it was an illusion the archer would have to interact to disbelieve. Just firing an arrow at it would imply the archer already disbelieves before interaction. So, they'd have to spend an action to disbelieve. If they failed the save, they'd think it's real. If they were ornery, they could fire at the "wall" (a strange thing to do to a wall they believe is real! Sounds pretty meta-gamey to me...and going against the rules of illusion interaction entirely!). BUT in theory, if the arrow hit the AC, the archer would interact and therefore get a saving throw...or auto-disbelieve (I'd have to re-read the article to know for sure).

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
Silverhand wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I've had rogues who buy chalk, and draw it down the wall in dungeons, both to prevent getting lost/backtracked, and because they will find a fake wall when their hand goes through it instead of drawing a line.
But why are they drawing a line right up to the wall? :)And if they did, they'd still have to roll to disbelieve their senses because they have minds that can be fooled. If they failed their save, they'd think, "that was weird, I'm losing my mind" not, "It's an illusion!" because that would mean they're getting the benefit of a successful save instead of a failed one.

They literally said, "In a dungeon, unless in a fight, I draw a line on the left hand wall and mark it with arrows to indicate which way I'm going. I keep the line unbroken, and don't take the chalk off the wall unless we're in a fight when I drop it."

If there was a hallway to the left, hidden by a silent image of a wall, they automatically are going to put their hand through it while trying to draw their line of chalk down the wall.

Similar to a pit trap hidden by a silent imaged floor. Probing the foor ahead of you or searching as you go would give you a save, putting your foot through the floor is automatic.

From the articles you linked:

Quote:
According to the Player's Handbook, if you're faced with proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve the illusion without making a saving throw. The rules give a few examples of "proof" that an illusion isn't real. If you step on an illusory floor and fall through, you know that floor isn't real. Likewise, if you poke around an illusory floor and your hand (or the implement you're using as a probe) goes through the floor, you know the floor isn't real.

Absolutely!

Now that I know that there would be 100% constant contact with the wall, that's different. I thought the PCs were drawing on the floor for some reason and came to a wall and tried drawing through the wall. Apologies.


Full-round attack, first arrow is to shoot at the wall their wizard friend said is fake.

Or, having experienced wall illusions before, full-round attack, spend first arrow to fire at the wall, arrow bounces off, stop full-attack and spend move action to do something else because this wall is real.

The fact that the wall appeared suddenly in the middle of the fight means it could be an illusion, or it could be real. If the archer is familiar with illusions, or has a history of their wizard using them, its not unreasonable for his first assumption to be the that the wall is one, even if it looks real.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:

Full-round attack, first arrow is to shoot at the wall their wizard friend said is fake.

Or, having experienced wall illusions before, full-round attack, spend first arrow to fire at the wall, arrow bounces off, stop full-attack and spend move action to do something else because this wall is real.

The fact that the wall appeared suddenly in the middle of the fight means it could be an illusion, or it could be real. If the archer is familiar with illusions, or has a history of their wizard using them, its not unreasonable for his first assumption to be the that the wall is one, even if it looks real.

Indeed. But even if they assume it's an illusion they still can't tell on their own that's its real or not unless they interact with it. They can't auto disbelieve. They still have to make a saving throw even if they have a hunch it's an illusion. And if they fail the saving throw, they have to assume it's real.


Silverhand wrote:
And if they fail the saving throw, they have to assume it's real.

If you fail the throw, and must assume its real, then they would never have a reason to attempt to interact with it in the first place.

The player can decide if their character reacts like the wall is real, or illusionary. If they want to attack the wall, they can. If they want to attack the square in front of them because they think there is an invisible creature there every round, they can.

You can say that a fighter with a 4 INT and no ranks in spellcraft, and no experience at all in his entire life with magic might not know anything about illusions, or illusionary walls, and thus it is meta-gaming for the player to have the PC try to attack the wall, and I would be inclined to agree. Or maybe the PC felt trapped, and since this wall suddenly appeared, maybe its weaker than the other walls that were here the whole time, so he is just hoping to try to escape by breaking it down, only to find it isn't a wall at all!

Point is, the player is in control of the character. Whether repeatedly trying to disbelieve something because they think its an illusion is metagaming is a different discussion.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:

If you fail the throw, and must assume its real, then they would never have a reason to attempt to interact with it in the first place.

Not so. If they saw an illusion of a guard standing still, they might try talking to the guard. That's an interaction. If they decided to sneak past the guard, that's not an interaction (as noted in those articles I linked).

Tarantula wrote:

The player can decide if their character reacts like the wall is real, or illusionary. If they want to attack the wall, they can. If they want to attack the square in front of them because they think there is an invisible creature there every round, they can.

I don't know. They what's the point in the saving throw to disbelieve?

I suppose as long as the player isn't doing it instantaneously (that is, as long as they're spending time to attack/inspect) then, sure. But it has to eat up time/actions so that the illusion isn't simply disregarded.

example:
1) wall appears.
2) PC says, "Nope' and walks through as though it were nothing.

That certainly wouldn't make sense.

Tarantula wrote:


Or maybe the PC felt trapped, and since this wall suddenly appeared, maybe its weaker than the other walls that were here the whole time, so he is just hoping to try to escape by breaking it down, only to find it isn't a wall at all!

Okay! No problem. But the PC must spent the requisite time interacting with it. Then yes. But it's not automatic. there must be some action used that shows meaningful interaction and thoughtfulness is taking place.

Tarantula wrote:


Point is, the player is in control of the character. Whether repeatedly trying to disbelieve something because they think its an illusion is metagaming is a different discussion.

The player IS in charge of the character, but they have to follow the rules as written around illusions. As I'm starting to see, interaction and disbelief isn't only about the saving throw, it's about time spent and actions spent. As long as the PC isn't simply ignoring the illusion out-of-hand, then I think reasonable accommodations can be made by GM and PC alike. Also, asking the PC, "Why would your character do that?" is wholly fair. "I'm just feeling like shooting at a wall/waling into walls for fun."

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying a player can do anything they want as a way of getting around a sensible/reasonable rule is where the game gets silly and unfair to the illusionist. The PC must have a reason for being suspicious that there's an illusion in play before they just start firing at walls or walking into them.


Quote:
2) PC says, "Nope' and walks through as though it were nothing.

PC spends a move action and spends 10' moving adjacent to the wall, pc tries to continue movement through the wall, is successful because the wall doesn't exist, continues to finish movement.

Or, PC spends a move action and spends 10' moving adjacent to the wall, pc tries to continue movement through the wall, and fails because he can't walk through walls. PC can take remaining movement left in move action.

Similar to if the PC tried to move through a doorway, but the enemy had readied an action to close the door in his face. He could then back away with the rest of his move action.

All of the stated actions I've said involved an action from the PC, either shooting the wall or trying to move through it.

I disagree that talking to a guard would give you a saving throw. Those guys with the big hats sure don't react at all, and yet they are real.

Now, if you walked up in front of the guard, and tried to start a conversation(using a skill, bluff, diplomacy, perform, something), I'd give you a save. But just shouting towards him isn't going to do it (free action therefore no save).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I'm concentrating on an illusory wall, and you shoot an arrow at it, I'm going to have the illusion react to the attack. That is, you will see an illusory arrow appear to stick into or bounce off the wall.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
Quote:
2) PC says, "Nope' and walks through as though it were nothing.

PC spends a move action and spends 10' moving adjacent to the wall, pc tries to continue movement through the wall, is successful because the wall doesn't exist, continues to finish movement.

Or, PC spends a move action and spends 10' moving adjacent to the wall, pc tries to continue movement through the wall, and fails because he can't walk through walls. PC can take remaining movement left in move action.

Similar to if the PC tried to move through a doorway, but the enemy had readied an action to close the door in his face. He could then back away with the rest of his move action.

All of the stated actions I've said involved an action from the PC, either shooting the wall or trying to move through it.

I disagree that talking to a guard would give you a saving throw. Those guys with the big hats sure don't react at all, and yet they are real.

Now, if you walked up in front of the guard, and tried to start a conversation(using a skill, bluff, diplomacy, perform, something), I'd give you a save. But just shouting towards him isn't going to do it (free action therefore no save).

I think we agree on most of these points:

a) As long as the PC is spending the time to interact, then reasonable allowances for disbelief could be made.
b) Indeed, depending on the sort of talking the PC was doing with the guard. If they were just shouting at the guard, it might not work. Trying to interact (key word!) with the guard through conversation, then...that would count.

Note also: imagine my wizard tries to hide his fellow PC in an illusory box. The poor PC in the illusory box would have to touch the box etc (interact/move action) before the disbelieve Will save could be done. If the PC wished to stay in the box and use it as cover while firing his arrows through the box, he'd have to successfully disbelieve the illusion with a will save. If he failed the Will Save, he couldn't see through the illusion. He could fire through total concealment, and then disbelieve, according to our discussion.

What a mess illusions can be!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not entirely on board with the proposed action economy here.


  • Ultimate Intrigue outlines which illusions require interaction to trigger a saving throw: figments and glamers. Because phantasms (and by extension, patterns) assault your mind so they are already interacting with you; you don't need a further action.

    Ultimate Intrigue also outlines how much action is required on an interaction: at least a Move action (comparable to spending an action to make an active perception check), but it can be all sorts of actions that involve interacting. Trying to walk through a wall is a move action so it qualifies for example. (The 5ft step is puzzling. Maybe the kind of careful footwork required for a 5ft step isn't possible if the suspicious wall blocks your sight?)

    But keep in mind that spending a move-sized action is only the general case of disbelieving: "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." Clearly, there are unusual cases where you can disbelieve an illusion without interaction/study.

  • If someone tells you it's an illusion, you don't need to spend actions or interaction. The CRB says "If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

  • "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." If you don't need a saving throw to disbelieve, then you also don't need to spend

So what does disbelief mean, really? If there's a silent image of an illusory wall, my ally who I totally trust just told me it was an illusion, but I failed my saving throw regardless, what does that mean?

Silent Image isn't mind-affecting. I'm still free to choose between the advice of my ally who I totally trust, and what I see myself, and I see a convincing wall. It's like some optical illusion picture where your friend can see a face and you squint and squint but just don't see it.

So what happens? I'm skeptical about the wall, but I can't see through it. So I decide to shoot an arrow through it. The caster has the wall react appropriately, by making it look like there's an arrow stuck in the wall. However, he can't make it sound appropriately, because this is silent image. If the environment was otherwise quiet enough that would be good enough to prove to me that the wall was fake. (At minimum, it would trigger a new save because I'm interacting with it.) Now that I got from "skeptical" to "successful disbelief", I can see through the wall: "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."

---

So there's a difference between disbelief and skepticism. At least with the non-mind-affecting illusions. Just because you don't pass your saving throw doesn't mean you're not suspicious or don't believe your mate who did make his save. It's not metagaming to engage in more rigorous experiments to prove something is real or unreal. But until you disbelieve the illusion, you can't see through it. Just because you think someone is wearing a hat of disguise doesn't mean you can see what he looks like, until you pass the save.

As for the dude drawing chalk lines on the walls. As a dungeon designer, you should bet on two horses at the same time. First build a dungeon with some illusory walls, second replace some of the walls with things you really shouldn't be touching (traps, mold, mimics). Whenever you use one trick that has an obvious counter, also use another one that gets triggered by the obvious counter.

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spellcraft identification vs. Illusion spells as "proof" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.