In 2e/3e there is no school with more entertaining (and creative) possibilities than illusion. Unfortunately, it also serves as one of the more problematic elements, rule-wise. These spells require a LOT of DM judgement--and they should. It even spawned a Rules of the Game series of articles (All About Illusions) on WotC's site.
The following thoughts/issues are from extensive playtesting; I've sat on both player and DM sides of the illusion debate. I also went through the RotG articles for ideas about things that aren't very clear in the rule set.
1) The rules don't say what a figment's attack bonus is. RotG suggests using your attack bonus is a good default; others have suggested using something keyed off the caster's stat (INT/CHA/WIS). I'd prefer the latter, but regardless it probably needs clarification in the spell or in the school.
2) A few more examples would be helpful clarifying the differences between subschools, in some cases--for instance, you can use a figment to create an image of a soldier...but you couldn't use it to make yourself look LIKE a soldier (you'd need a glamer).
3) Disbelief -- Could use SIGNIFICANT clarification.
a) The rules don't say what happens if you successfully disbelieve a figment or glamer that doesn't have a visual element. I assume you remain aware of the effect.
b) According to PH173, you don't receive a saving throw against an illusion effect with a disbelief saving throw until you study the illusion carefully or interact with it. RotG suggests that studying the illusion 'carefully' means taking at least a move or standard action, probably as part of a course of normal events (since the victim doesn't actually know its an illusion yet). Other DMs force a Perception check (which is probably too much...although it might be appropriate to penalize those with poor perception that way, I suppose).
c) "A character faced with proof an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." This line has provoked more arguments than the rest of the section combined. Note: In DnD, not a lot is totally implausible. For instance, Lenny the barbarian swings a sword through an illusory opponent. Lenny's player Joe wants an auto-disbelief. His DM instead says "He could be insubstantial. Besides, you have an INT of 6. Saving throw only." Who was right? The dividing line is blurry there. Maybe it should stay that way...but regardless, a few additional examples could be a good thing.
d) The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you should probably automatically disbelieve it (because you created it).
4) Shadows - Shadows have a few special points too--they are partially real, and some effects are boolean values. For my games, If a Shadow casts a save or die, I roll against their reality percentage to determine whether or not it takes effect (so a 70% real creature casting hold person casts, and rolls against 70%. If successful, the creature receives a save as normal). Being only part real cannot make a creature a more capable foe-- penalties (such as dex) probably shouldn't be reduced when calculating a shadow's AC.
5) A Final Wish - (Most) Illusions don't deal real damage. In 2e, they could deal "fake" damage until they recipient fell over from fright (shock roll). I'd be thrilled to see "illusory" damage make a return or a mention--even if it doesn't cause a shock roll, illusions tricking players or monsters into reacting differently because they're 'hurt' would be too fun. Tack on an auto-disbelief when they reach zero and don't die. ;-) Even if these arrived as higher-level versions...
I love illusions, both as a player and as a DM...and strongly disliked where 4e took them. Looking forward to my first Silent Image in the PFRPG final in August. Hope some of this was helpful!
Thanks Fizzlebolt, good stuff.
1) The rules don't say what a figment's attack bonus is. RotG suggests using your attack bonus is a good default; others have suggested using something keyed off the caster's stat (INT/CHA/WIS). I'd prefer the latter, but regardless it probably needs clarification in the spell or in the school.
The PF Beta on p.159 says that figments "are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly." So figments need no attack bonus, since they are "useless for attacking". I liked the way phantasmal force in 1e used to inflict damage if the target believed the illusion was real. I think figments could inflict nonlethal damage. That way, when you learn the damage isn't real, you still need some time to recover because it felt so real (1 hp per hour per character level). Or maybe successfully disbelieving could negate half the damage instantly, leaving the remaining half to recover as nonlethal damage. I like blurring the line between illusion and reality rather than debunking illusion completely. This is after all a fantasy game.
3) Disbelief -- Could use SIGNIFICANT clarification.
I think figments could be strengthened by belief and damaged by disbelief. Since they don't have hp, that could mean making it harder or easier for others nearby to disbelieve. That would make the order of saving throw rolls important, because of the chain reaction. I'd go in order by proximity to the illusion, so you could target the weak-minded to strengthen the effect of your illusion on those less easily fooled. This could make it much handier to have a gnome in your group.
b) According to PH173, you don't receive a saving throw against an illusion effect with a disbelief saving throw until you study the illusion carefully or interact with it. RotG suggests that studying the illusion 'carefully' means taking at least a move or standard action, probably as part of a course of normal events (since the victim doesn't actually know its an illusion yet). Other DMs force a Perception check (which is probably too much...although it might be appropriate to penalize those with poor perception that way, I suppose).
I'd skip the Perception check, since your five senses (no matter how good they are) are playing tricks on you anyway. If it's a check, then what's the point of the saving throw? The illusion is mind-affecting, making your senses agree.
c) "A character faced with proof an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." This line has provoked more arguments than the rest of the section combined. Note: In DnD, not a lot is totally implausible. For instance, Lenny the barbarian swings a sword through an illusory opponent. Lenny's player Joe wants an auto-disbelief. His DM instead says "He could be insubstantial. Besides, you have an INT of 6. Saving throw only." Who was right? The dividing line is blurry there. Maybe it should stay that way...but regardless, a few additional examples could be a good thing.
Good point. Why limit the possibilities when there's so much fun to be had? Even in real life, it's hard to prove something when someone is convinced of an illusion. "Proving" really means helping someone make their saving throw, so it should use the "Aid Another" rules or let someone else borrow your Int bonus or something like that. A character does not accept proof until he makes his saving throw.
4) Shadows - Shadows have a few special points too--they are partially real, and some effects are boolean values. For my games, If a Shadow casts a save or die, I roll against their reality percentage to determine whether or not it takes effect (so a 70% real creature casting hold person casts, and rolls against 70%. If successful, the creature receives a save as normal). Being only part real cannot make a creature a more capable foe-- penalties (such as dex) probably shouldn't be reduced when calculating a shadow's AC.
Shadows are so cool because they truly blur the line between illusion and reality. I'd love to see a feat that lets an illusionist sacrifice some of his own reality to invest his shadows with more reality, maybe on a two-for-one percentage basis. If you add permanency (and sacrifice xp or something like that), the illusion could become an independent creature, or a scion (another character gained as an alternative to the Leadership feat). Illusion might make an interesting template, something like a golem in the sense that it's a magical creation, but sentient, and it could have interesting traits like greater susceptibility to illusion (damage received from illusions could be lethal instead of nonlethal) combined with resistance to other types of magic or the ability to ignore some physical damage. At least, a Greater Shadow Magic feat would be welcome.
1) The rules don't say what a figment's attack bonus is.The PF Beta on p.159 says that figments "are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly." So figments need no attack bonus, since they are "useless for attacking".
I just checked to confirm that this text nerfing figments is straight out of 3.5e PHB. I don't remember how this worked in 3e. I'm a little surprised, isn't anyone else concerned about the power level of illusions, or is everyone happy with how they work now? It's too bad the thread is labeled as a request for clarification, when the OP seems to be asking for something more.
The PF Beta on p.159 says that figments "are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly." So figments need no attack bonus, since they are "useless for attacking".
In general, yes--I've had situations come up, though, especially with Major Image. For instance, say you create an image of a caster, and want to make a 'touch attack'. Even though it couldn't actually cause damage, you want to 'fake it' knowing that with a faked thermal effect, the image is more plausible (miming a 'saved'). This means either an attack roll is needed, or you have to rule that it just 'fakes' a failure. It's probably not the best example--just one off the top of my head.
I liked the way phantasmal force in 1e used to inflict damage if the target believed the illusion was real. I think figments could inflict nonlethal damage....
I'd like to see a spin on the old 2e system come back, myself, minus the lethality--even if it's as higher-level versions of the image spells, or a illusion specialization benefit. The damage goes away once they reach 0, or make their disbelief....until then, there's no reason to believe it isn't real. Makes illusion more effective, without actually changing the damage--in essence, it boosts it to a more believable version of battlefield control (and it would make for one heck of a DM tool). I suppose given this suggestion, I probably ought to have titled the thread differently...but totally reworking illusion probably isn't realistic at this stage of the playtest. I'd rather ascertain that the potential pitfalls that hamper DMs when adjudicating illusion are illuminated as best they can be.
As for the permanent Shadow...you might enjoy Simulacrum. I know I do! ;-)
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Illusions are, and have always been, kinda tricky and troubling. In my own games, I tend to rule on illusion effects by trying to ensure that someone does something that won't outdo a non-illusion spell of the same level. The more creative a player is, the easier it is for him to use even relatively simple illusions to try to mimic the effects of really powerful things, and that's frustrating to both the GM and to other players, who legitimately earn those real powers.
Put another way: Just because at 5th level you can create a pretty convincing illusion of a pit fiend or a tornado doesn't mean that you should expect your 3rd level spell to duplicate the effects of a gate or control weather spell. At best, you should expect your 3rd level spell to duplicate the effects of any other 3rd level spell's power.
Illusions are, and have always been, kinda tricky and troubling. In my own games, I tend to rule on illusion effects by trying to ensure that someone does something that won't outdo a non-illusion spell of the same level. The more creative a player is, the easier it is for him to use even relatively simple illusions to try to mimic the effects of really powerful things, and that's frustrating to both the GM and to other players, who legitimately earn those real powers.
Put another way: Just because at 5th level you can create a pretty convincing illusion of a pit fiend or a tornado doesn't mean that you should expect your 3rd level spell to duplicate the effects of a gate or control weather spell. At best, you should expect your 3rd level spell to duplicate the effects of any other 3rd level spell's power.
It's true--to a degree. The counterpoint is that illusions are usually significantly weaker (take their AC for instance--a 5-year-old commoner can take that pit fiend out. ;-) ), and (when interacted with directly) inevitably disbelieved. There's no reason to mimic a griffon with an illusion if I can Summon a real griffon for a similar or greater duration (etc.).
In my games, I generally allow anything allowable within the bounds of the spell...but a player abusing the system might find word gets around as their foes begin saving (giving save bonuses), etc. As I see it though, that's JUST what illusions are for--to mimic (but not truly duplicate) higher level creatures and spells. It gives a creative player an alternative to hurling fireballs and summoning monsters.
It's true, though, that adding damage components might make this less workable. The last thing I want to see is illusion nerfed or further deincentive-ized...no one seems to use them anymore as it is ;-)
Here's a system that we're looking at using to adjudicate interacting with and disbelieving illusions.
1) Seeing The Illusion - Whenever a character first views/hears/feels/tastes an illusionary creature or effect, they get to make an opposed Perception roll against the Spellcraft roll of the caster of the illusion to determine if there are any flaws in the illusion. The caster of the illusion makes a Spellcraft roll at the time of casting - the number achieved on the roll sets a static DC for the Perception checks of anyone that encounters the illusion.
For Illusions involving Sight or Touch, this roll is modified by the modifiers listed under the Perception skill (if they apply). If the illusion is being used to impersonate a specific individual that the character knows, then they also get the Visual Perception skill check bonuses for being Familiar with the creature being impersonated by the illusion.
If the character is able to notice flaws in the illusion, they are able to immediately make a Will saving throw against the effect. If they make their Will saving throw, they successfully disbelieve the illusion.
2) Interacting With The Illusion - If the character doesn't immediately see through the illusion, or if they are able to detect flaws in the illusion but the power of the spell is such that they are unable to make their Will save, then they believe it is a real effect. They do not receive another saving throw against the effect until the character actually interacts with the effect. Interacting with the illusion might involve trying to talk to an illusionary peasant, passing a wooden staff through a wall of flames, or trying to ride an illusionary horse. As soon as the character interacts with the illusion, another the character makes another Perception roll against the caster's original Spellcraft roll.
If the character is able to notice flaws in the illusion, they are able to immediately make a Will saving throw against the effect. If they make their Will saving throw, they successfully disbelieve the illusion.
3) Illusionary Combat - If the character enters combat with the illusion or is placed in a situation where they would take damage from the illusion, the character is placed in a situation where the illusion is less capable of keeping up with the demands of combat and the character is much more likely to spot flaws in the illusionary creature/effect. The character is entitled to a saving throw for every round of the combat's duration. They also receive a cumulative +1 bonus to their Will saving throw for every round that they are engaged in combat with the illusion (i.e. until the GM declares that the fight is over). If they make their Will saving throw, they successfully disbelieve the illusion.
We've found that this takes a lot of the guesswork out of "would the character actually think that this might be an illusion or not".
1) The rules don't say what a figment's attack bonus is. RotG suggests using your attack bonus is a good default; others have suggested using something keyed off the caster's stat (INT/CHA/WIS). I'd prefer the latter, but regardless it probably needs clarification in the spell or in the school.
Most illusions can't actually harm anything, so an illusion that is engaged in combat is probably going to be missing and getting "near hits" instead of actually connecting with the target. But if you really wanted to "hit" something with the illusion, I'd probably use the mechanic listed under "Hand Of The Apprentice".
3) Disbelief -- Could use SIGNIFICANT clarification.
a) The rules don't say what happens if you successfully disbelieve a figment or glamer that doesn't have a visual element. I assume you remain aware of the effect.
You'd probably end up with a sensory effect that you are able to experience if you wish but is easily ignored. You might be able to hear a "banshee's scream", but you'll know it isn't real. That burlap sack might feel like silk, and that morningstar might taste like a salt lick, but you know it isn't real - these are sensations that "ring hollow".
d) The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you should probably automatically disbelieve it (because you created it).
We are in concurrance on this.