I've never played an illusionist in all my years of gaming because they always seemed very limited in combat situations, and rather lackluster as a concept as a whole. I've recently thought of a very interesting character concept for an illusionist that actually got me excited about trying to play one. In it i'd focus more on out of combat illusions, bieng a master of deception and trickery, and perhaps a bit of a shyster. Why fight that tribe of orcs guarding the magical artifact when you can look just like them and walk right in? Become anyone in a crowd, and essentially never have your own identity. Make others believe whatever you want, from experiences with the divine to simply not seeing what's really there. A fun change of pace, i thought.
Wrong.
Illusionists are worthless beyond the needs of instant flashes of brief trickery. Most illusions only last as long as you concentrate and do nothing else. At higher levels you can have them last a few seconds longer after you break concentration. At 9th level you finally get an illusion spell that lasts more than a brief blip... 1min/level. Then at level 11 you finally get one that lasts... permanently?
The curve is way off there. Why can't an illusionist cast an illusion that lasts for a few minutes, then a few hours, then a few days before jumping straight to permanent? They have to wait until level 11 to get an illusion that lasts more than an hour, and by then the duration is moot.
But what irks me the most is the complete lack of 'self' illusions. Disguise self is rather limiting, and please correct me if i'm wrong, it's the only 'self' illusion in the book. If they want to look like anything other than "a slightly different looking person", I see no real spells backing them up. Transmuters can polymorph and really become whatever they want, but an illusionist can't just LOOK like any creature? Even so, if I stick with Disguise self and roll with it, it lasts embarassingly short. 10min/level. At level 20 it lasts 3 hours, 10 minutes. An epic level illusionist and he can only fool people for a few hours before he has to leave. Ok, so the spell is highly circumstantial and meant only for one shot, pre-prepared encounters that last very briefly.
There's no "staying power" for an illusionist. They make a bright flash, some pretty colors, then move on to a different encounter. What am I missing here? Are they nothing more than glorified street magicians with no... mythical illusiory power of historic myths and legends? "Poof! Oh wasn't that pretty! Well, gotta go!"
1) metamagic => extend
2) Concentration => illusions can stick around for a very long time, you just cannot do something else.
WotC had a series of articles (4 I believe) describing the power of illusions, if you retrieve those columns I do believe they would give you and your DM a good baseline concerning the effectiveness of illusions.
Illusions are fun, don't give up on them.
|
The rule I use, which came from Skip Williams in the 3.5 days, is thus:
A character can only make a save against an illusion if they "interact" with it, or if it "interacts" with them. "Interact" means "spend an action".
So they get a save if the illusory dragon lands on them and attacks, but not if it lands in front of them and roars in a vaguely menacing manner. No one gets a save until they spend an action doing something with it - attacking, making a knowledge check to find out why frightful presence didn't trigger, etc.
So with disguise self, if you want to walk past a guard, you have a choice. You can either just walk past and hope he ignores you (or takes 10 on his spot check and fails the will save he gets for this), or you can talk to him with a bluff check (and trigger the will save, but hopefully with a penalty because you are distracting him).
Or, you can go invisible to get past the actual guards (who can't use a passive spot check to notice you, and thus get no save), and then throw on disguise self after you are in and walking past people that generally don't care enough to study you.
One of my favorite 3.5 characters is a somewhat optimized beguiler/shadowcraft mage, and it would be hard to call her underpowered. OTOH, she isn't really that overpowered either, just very fun to play because of the insane flexibility of what she can do.
In this case, illusions are used primarily to emulate almost conjuration and evocation spell. It was mechanically possible (although there are some bits that DMs might balk at) in 3.5 to use any spell slot (level 1-9) to spontaneously cast any equal or lower level evocation, conjuration (summoning) or conjuration(creation) spell. forget about all the metagaming and agonizing over what spells to create, just wing it! also, this particular combination (sometimes called "the killer gnome" on the WoTC character optimization boards) has loads of stealth and other useful skills (social, mobility, traps, use magic device, etc). at higher levels, spell resistance was no challenge at all due to the mechanics of the build. very fun character that fits the concept of the trickster that you are talking about PLUS adds in some nice summoning and blasting potential.- you would need PHBII for beguiler and Races of Stone for the shadowcraft mage PrC.
But, assuming you are playing just core, I agree with others that it comes down to DM fiat. glamers especially can be great or useless, same with shadow illusions - shadow evocation/conjuration can be awesome if you can choose to believe them (and therefore duplicate any number of useful buffs and utility), otherwise much more limited.
in combat, color spray remained a staple for my character until the shadowcraft mage kicked in at level 10 or so. sure it is a level 1 spell, but I was able to get quite high save DCs (+4 on top of level+ability or more with heighten spell with feats, racial, beguiler class feature) and with the mobility of the character getting into the 15' cone range wasn't usually a big deal. having access to sculpt spell would be great. stunning opponents for 1 round is pretty much a fight ender at higher levels. but fighting undead, plants, vermin and later mind blanked opponents was terrible (unless glamers are ruled to work on them, so again DM fiat).
but even for general wizards or sorcerers, and even with DM nerfing, spells like color spray, silent image, invisibility/grtr invis, mirror image, displacement etc. etc. are (or should be) staples through-out their careers.
The biggest problem I've observed with illusions is the disbelief system. It's extremely complicated to explain that something is believable and unbelievable. My character made a brick wall appear out of nothing -- that is unbelievable. But according to the disbelief rules, it is believable (in that, despite the fact that you find it unbelievable, you find it believable).
Also, most DMs don't know when to give saving throws for illusions. My rule is that any time an illusion does something mechanically (particularly giving concealment or total concealment in combat), a disbelief save should be in order. Otherwise, the standard action to study or some action for disbelief (attack, touch, etc.) is fine.
Finally, using figment creatures in combat is pretty complicated. The first big three figments (silent, minor, major) have some significant differences between them. Most DMs don't care to figure out how they work in relationship with each other.
SNIP
glamers especially can be great or useless,SNIP
but fighting undead, plants, vermin and later mind blanked opponents was terrible (unless glamers are ruled to work on them, so again DM fiat).
reading Mealbolex's post I realized I mixed up glamers and figments in my previous post- d'oh. glamers would work just fine on mindless/blanked creatures and there are generally fewer issues with those.
figments make an illusion of something from nothing, whereas glamers make something appear to be something else.
Not to distract from the illusion focus of the thread, but Charm (and sometimes Dominate) is just as bad as Illusion.Exactly how much will a trusted friend and ally do for you? What is the most favorable way to perceive my words and actions? What actions are against the nature of my thrall? This will vary from DM to DM, and even session to session depending on the situation.
I have experience with enchanters and (long ago) illusionists, and the frustration is the same.
I feel your pain on this one. The PC above (beguiler) never uses charm on anything but inconsequential NPCs, because the DM is a firm believer in free will and strong personalities (although trickery is kosher, control isn't on). So diplomacy and charm are only good for very minor benefits. Social interactions are not a big part of that campaign. I don't think it is a threadjack, the issue is the same - to what extent can players influence the psychology of other PCs/NPCs/creatures using game mechanics?
So diplomacy and charm are only good for very minor benefits.
In terms of game mechanics, there's only a very short list of things you can't get someone to do with the charm spells. They're hard to use in combat (+5 bonus to the save + opposed Charisma check to get them to do something they wouldn't normally do), so naturally they should have powerful effects.
The problem with charm/domination effects is that if they allow blanket mind control they can also be used against PCs and in general DM mind control of PCs is viewed as a major violation of trust. Thus you have all the "If this action is against their moral code, etc" restriction that get back to DM fiat.
The whole believable/unbelievable thing is less of an issue when conjurers can routinely generate "unbelievable" effects such as summoning a creature out of nothingness all the time.
As a general rule I tend to limit the actual impact of illusions to effects that a similar level non-illusionist can generate. Effects that are bigger tend to stretch the shadow stuff that is forming the illusion to the breaking point. From a computer graphics perspective it would be something that looks poorly rendered. It might fool people momentarily but given enough analysis (sometimes even a cursory once over) it looks obviously 'shopped'.
Silent Image for example can easily be used to create an illusion to distract the goblin guards while the party sneaks past the guardpost but a silent image of a great wyrm popping out of nowhere is going to be sketchy beyond a moment of temporary terror.
As a general rule I tend to limit the actual impact of illusions to effects that a similar level non-illusionist can generate. Effects that are bigger tend to stretch the shadow stuff that is forming the illusion to the breaking point. From a computer graphics perspective it would be something that looks poorly rendered. It might fool people momentarily but given enough analysis (sometimes even a cursory once over) it looks obviously 'shopped'.
Silent Image for example can easily be used to create an illusion to distract the goblin guards while the party sneaks past the guardpost but a silent image of a great wyrm popping out of nowhere is going to be sketchy beyond a moment of temporary terror.
When I was playing an illusionist I always made sure to describe how the illusion arrives as well as what it looks like. Usually rising out of the ground or surrounding environment, whatever. They never, ever, "popped" into existance. I'd much rather have them think I was a transmuter or necromancer than an illusionist. :)
The whole believable/unbelievable thing is less of an issue when conjurers can routinely generate "unbelievable" effects such as summoning a creature out of nothingness all the time.
It's not an issue when there's no mechanics riding on whether something believable or not. My character could not believe that a summoning happens, but the summoning is there regardless. My character could not believe that a figment of a monster exists, and it suddenly doesn't because the GM gives me a disbelief check for reason X/Y/Z. I've seen one GM give out checks if it "just appeared to be unbelievable". You hinted that if an illusion is too sketchy, it would be grounds for a disbelief check.
For instance, of the first three illusion spells, only major image has rules that allow it to simulate a creature being hit in combat. If anyone attacks a silent or minor illusion, the image is instantly disbelieved. But if major image is being concentrated on, it can "roll with the blow" and (with an obvious disbelief check) continue to exist even if hit. Combat with a figment creature is easy with major image; it's not so easy with minor and silent image. How effective is silent image in combat (as a creature figment) versus minor image? Does lack of sound add disbelief to the creature figment? The GM is on her own.
This is because the rules are self-contradictory and vague in the extreme. There isn't a right answer to when to give saves on illusions, merely lots of ideas on how they should work.
I think this is right. Every GM is essentially granted free reign to either screw himself or the players with illusions.
If anyone attacks a silent or minor illusion, the image is instantly disbelieved. But if major image is being concentrated on, it can "roll with the blow" and (with an obvious disbelief check) continue to exist even if hit.
Where does it say they auto-disbelieve (rather than getting a save to disbelieve for interaction) when they successfully hit a silent/minor image?
Where does it say they auto-disbelieve (rather than getting a save to disbelieve for interaction) when they successfully hit a silent/minor image?
Major image includes the text
The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.
Since the other spells do not include this text, there's no reason to assume that the other spells let you "cause the illusion to react appropriately". Basically, you can't do it unless the spell says you can |:
Confusing, no?
Reading through this I think that if Paizo does a DMG style book they should include a paragraph on dealing with illusions and enchantments. From my experience Illusion spells don't really get used except for the invisibility and mirror image types. I think this is because of the difficulty of ruling illusions given their potential to be game breaking. I think the above posters have it right that if the illusion created within the limits of the spell interacts with a creature or the creature interacts with it there is a save to disbelieve.
For charm based effects I'd say that a character under charm person in a combat would seek to end the combat nonlethally. Charm is not dominate so a charmed character still has some free will they just have a positive bias towards the one that charmed them. So in a combat situation when a character is charmed he doesn't necessarily see his allies as enemies all of a sudden. Instead he sees a new ally in the form of the caster and would want to stop his allies clashing. A warrior might stop attacking and try to convince his comrades to "cease fire". A spellcaster might also try to convince his comrades to a peaceful end, but may use spells to protect and heal the combatants on both sides. Maybe some sort of entangle/grease effect.
A charmed character may see the charmer as an ally, but he'd still see the charmer's team as potential threats. For example orcs with axes would still be orcs with axes. A charmed combatant would likely need convincing from the caster that the opponents are not foes and that there is no need to fight.
|
|
I always thought illusions were somewhat clear.
Figments: It's really there. "Interaction" requires doing something that would show it to be not really there (such as touching it). Once disbelieved it's still there. (Just because you know its wrong doesn't mean it goes "poof").
One good trick is to put an illusions of a wall where there is already a wall to cover up a symbol of <insert pain here> so that a party member with true seeing sees it and triggers it.
Glamers: Same as figments, but you "feel" what it really is when you disbelieve. Still looks the same, but you know it's wrong.
Patterns: You still see the thing that causes whatever effect it has, but that's about it. You get the check right away against the effect, but the visible portion acts like a figment.
Phantasm: It's all in your head. Either you make the will save and it's no longer there at all, or you fail and it's "really there" to you.
Shadow: I ban this because I don't like the way they work. I'd allow a player to take "pattern" versions of the spells that you get one check against or its real to you and does real damage (mind-affecting), but that's about it. I just have a personal thing against it, though.
Then again, that's how I've always run it.
My players wanted illusions to be basically omnipotent and quasi-real with saves few and far between. I wanted some level of realism and control so that the illusions would neither trivialize all encounters nor be trivially easy to overcome. This is the compromise out of a lot of arguing over the rules.
1. Illusion (figment) spells are now mind-affecting spells. However, they do not become mind-affecting until someone fails a Will save.
2. These illusion spells also grant SR when a creature makes a save. If it matters, the SR check happens before the save. The caster must be aware of the creature with SR in order to make the SR check.
3. A creature will make a Will save when it either studies the illusion or interacts with it. Until then, it will treat the illusion as if it were real. Studying the illusion is a move action, but the creature must have some sort of probable cause to study it and be within 10 feet. (Appearing out of nowhere, for example, is reason enough to study something.) Interaction implies hitting the illusion with an attack, talking to it, or any such action. If the caster can make the illusion react appropriately at the initial moment of interaction, the creature makes a Will save.
4. If the creature successfully makes its Will save, it recognizes that the illusion is not real. If it fails its Will save, the mind-affecting portion of the spell takes hold and the creature acts as if the illusion is real.
5. The caster must maintain line of sight to the illusion in order to properly maintain the mind-affecting portion of the spell, both at the moment that the interaction save occurs and any future interaction. The caster does not have to be in line of sight for the initial save of a careful study, but does for future interaction.
6. The mind-affecting portion allows the illusion spell to give a mental illusion of force. This does not allow it to exert actual force or support weight. It simply provides enough imagined force for a creature who has failed a save to continue to interact without realizing it is interacting with an illusion. This amount of force is flimsy at best.
a. Example: If the illusion is of a door, a creature so affected by the mind-affecting illusion could put his hand on it and “feel” the door (and thus become stopped), but he would not bounce off it if he decided that he needed to charge it. If he decided to strike it or kick it down, it is possible that he could continue to be deluded.
7. Interaction with the illusion after an initial failed save requires the caster’s maintenance. If the caster is unable to cause the illusion to react appropriately, the creature automatically saves if it hits the illusion.
8. If the caster has stopped concentrating on the spell, through intentional action or not, it begins losing its power if it does not end immediately. An interaction that normally would grant no save with appropriate reaction by the caster instead grants a new Will save.
9. If the creature does succeed on a Will save, either initially or later, it can communicate to any ally that the illusion is not real. Those creatures, if not yet affected by the mind-affecting portion of the spell, can make a Will save with a +4 bonus to recognize the illusion as not real. Creatures already affected by the mind-affecting portion of the spell make a new save with a +4 bonus to shake it off. Creatures that fail this second save now cannot be convinced without incontrovertible proof that the illusion is false.
10. Incontrovertible proof that the illusion is false is an automatic successful Will save for any creature not yet affected by the mind-affecting portion of the illusion. If the creature has already failed one or more saves and is affected by the mind-affecting portion, it gets a new save at a +4 bonus each time it is presented with new incontrovertible proof.
11. If the illusion does something that is obviously unbelievable, it would cause anything from a Will save (maybe with a bonus) to an autosave. This is subjective and depends on the circumstances. A very intelligent creature will have a different idea of what is unbelievable than a deeply stupid one.
Where does it say they auto-disbelieve (rather than getting a save to disbelieve for interaction) when they successfully hit a silent/minor image?Major image includes the text
The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately.Since the other spells do not include this text, there's no reason to assume that the other spells let you "cause the illusion to react appropriately". Basically, you can't do it unless the spell says you can |:
Confusing, no?
It must be my years of playing, but previously all illusion spells had that bit about reacting appropriately, I allow it for silent image as well (there is no harm in allowing it).
ETA
Phantasmal Force
(Illusion/Phantasm)
Range: 60 yds. + 10 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 400 sq. ft. + Saving Throw: Special
100 sq. ft./level
This spell creates the illusion of any object, creature, or force, as long as it is within the boundaries of the spell's area of effect. The illusion is visual and affects all believing creatures (undead are immune) that view it. It does not create sound, smell, or temperature. Effects that depend on these senses usually fail. The illusion lasts until struck by an opponent--unless the spellcaster causes the illusion to react appropriately--or until the wizard ceases concentration upon the spell (due to desire, moving, or a successful attack that causes damage). Saving throws for illusions are explained under "Illusions" in Chapter 7: Magic and under "Adjudicating Illusions" at the beginning of Appendix 2. Creatures that disbelieve the illusion see it for what it is and add +4 to associates' saving throws if this knowledge can be communicated effectively. Creatures believing the illusion are subject to its effects (again, as explained in Chapter 7).
The illusionary effect can be moved by the caster within the limits of the area of effect. The DM has to rule on the effectiveness of this spell; detailed guidelines are outlined in Chapter 7: Magic and under "Adjudicating Illusions" at the beginning of Appendix 2.
The material component of the spell is a bit of fleece.
However, the proper use of illusions requires one to take the limitations of the spell into effect. If the spell doesn't have sound, the use it to mimic something that doesn't make any. An illusion of a wall is a pretty good one here, since the various wall of X spells have been a staple of arcane casters since the days of the basic box sets.
Yes, definitely. A huge fire breathing red dragon that doesn't make any sound when it roars and doesn't give off any heat won't be very convincing.
|
Also, most DMs don't know when to give saving throws for illusions.This is because the rules are self-contradictory and vague in the extreme. There isn't a right answer to when to give saves on illusions, merely lots of ideas on how they should work.
Both asa DM and player, the only way I have gotten illusions to work the way I feel they should is to require the Save to disbelieve only if the players (or "targets") have a reason to believe.
If the Illusion has a tactile sense to it, (an Illusionary brick wall feels like you are touching a brick wall even if you lean against it, you will fall through), is that your mind, not knowing it is an illusion automatically resists going through it. If it is a Shadow Illusion, it is actually solid. So no one would actually get a save to disbelieve until either the target did something they shouldn't be able to, or the character do something (mostly indirectly) that does bypass the illusions innate mental deception. Like leaning up against an Illusionary wall, or being shot at through it. However, the player can always say that they want to try to see through something as an illusion, as well. This often happens when they think something is a little off, (through in character clues), or just a little odd.
Sooo.
A wizard can cast a spell and create a semi-opaque plane of force that you can't break through- and can do so out of thin air.
He can summon a huge array of critters.. from thin air.
He can roll abit of bat poo and sulpher into a ball, flick it at you, and change it into a fireball.
He can turn the stone beneath your feet into mud, he can redirect gravity so that you are flung to the ceiling, he can snap his fingers and fly away into the sky or turn invisible or turn You invisible or turn into a dragon or.. well, anything..
but when someone makes a brick wall out of thin air its unbelieveable? When a hydra pops out of a hat its unbelieveable?
My friends, what we are doing here is extremely metagaming. We have our knowledge of the magical item section and a full memory of every spell in the book and so tell ourselves "you can't pull hydra out of hats" and "you can't make masonry walls with the Wall spells" and therefore they MUST be illusions!..
when in the game you see a hydra pop out of a hat, or see a brick wall and really have no reason to disbelieve it until the hydra's bite just isn't there or until you kick the wall and your foot literally goes through it.
Illusions are the hardest thing to adjudicate because its extremely difficult for us to separate all we know about the game rules from what our Characters would know about their game world. Even getting a good roll on a knowledge check or spellcraft check should leave the PC curious about whether or not he's just come across something he's never heard of before. Even the smartest wizard will come across spells he's never seen before, as will the most well informed bard come across a critter that leaves him stumped.
-S
|
|
A caster might have a better understanding of something unfamilar being an Illusion. The problem is not metagaming. Or rather let me say it is impossible not to metagame Illusions in D&D. If you tellthe players it is an Illusion, but their characters do not know it, it ruins the mood. If you don't tell them it is an Illusion, and follow the rules in the book, which also contradict themselves sometimes and are not very clear, Illusions are very weak and pointless. Even the ones that are partially real are very weak comparred to the real thing, which leaves most parties assuming they are facing a weaker caster rather than an Illusionist.
Other than what I suggested, that really only leaved the DM either being against the Players, or the GM basically pulling out abilities that are not in the book and that no PC can ever use.
|
|
Fortunately I haven't had to adjudicate Illusions in D&D 3+, and Ill have to think about all the different ramifications of what I am about to say for PF , but back in 1st and second editions I had the following rules in play:
Illusions are a magical effect that can and does effect minds to the extent that they cause psychosomatic effects on their believing targets.
Any illusion encountered was subject to a "passive" Disbelief save (vs Spell) Modified by the following:
Players wisdom bonus or penalty (representing intuition)
Each element missing (ie sound, smell , tactile) +1 Bonus
Total number of items or hit die represented +1 Bonus to save per HD, +1 bonus for each doubling.
Casters level as penalty to save
The various levels of shadow magic and shades (from 1st and 2nd ed) would make this save harder as well Shadow magic +1 Demi Shadow +2 and Shades +3.
The caster has familiarity with the subject being projected (has encountered or can cast) -1 save penalty
So the idea here was that a wise or intuitive person facing a large number of illusionary ogres cast by a low level illusionist or Wizard will generally see through the magic and disregard it. The image could initially look ok but then flaws become apparant - parts fade in and out - multiple ogres start doing the exact same action even if inappropriate etc.
This would be because a low level wizard may have never actually seen an ogre and may lack the mental discipline and concentration to make a large number of them act or react in somewhat random believable ways.
Now if the target of the illusion failed its save then to all intents and purposes the illusionary creatures or items will react or behave as normal including things like damage caused or Armor class. To hits would STILL be based on the illusionary creatures normal level representing the 'fact' that people EXPECT that an ogre or giant or Dire bear or catapult etc is likely to hit them hard.
If the player interacts with the creature or item (usually via combat) then every time the illusion is struck/tested etc the CASTER needs to make the same kind of save to represent his maintaining it and reacting to the players actions.
So basically this system rewarded simple individual items/creatures cast by high level specialists and punished multiple overpowered illusions (or made them very hard to maintain)
Illusionary duplicate spells were treated in the same way but using the level/hit die of the caster for the spell damage dice. Again no Illusionary damage via spell could exceed d6 per spell casters level.
A 2nd level wizard casting an Illusionary Fireball can only cast at most 2 hit dice worth.
If the first save failed then players would still be entitled to their normal save to avoid the effects of the spell as normal.
So in the example above the receiving targets would get to make their disbelieve roll (for 0 damage) and if they failed that they still get to make their normal expected save.
The important thing here to note is that most illusionary spells need to be OBVIOUS in effect in order to be able to work - ie Fire ball, Lightning bolt, Wall of fire etc. Firing off a ray of enfeeblement is just a gray coloured light ray. The gaze of an illusionary Basilisk is just a green gleam.
OK Now that I have said all of the above - how would this work in Pathfinder?
Well obviously the disbelief roll would have to be a Willpower save.
There should still be penalties for missing sensory components.
The effective level of the caster and the number of items/HD of creatures should still play a part.
I think that one needs to compare the Summoning spells as equivalents in order to have a better feel of the penalties/bonuses involved. ie a 3rd level Illusion spell should have a disbelief penalty in creating 1st and 2nd level illusionary creatures, but save bonuses for creating larger more powerful things.
Same with relative power of spell effects - 1st level illusion creating a fireball should be easier to disbelieve than a 3rd or better.
Remember also that familiarity of the spell or item being projected (on BOTH sides) should be a factor too.
Ie Dumbo the 1st level wizard wants to scare a village into paying him a protection fee with his illusionary dragon.
Unfortunately for him he has never seen a dragon only that they come in a variety of colours, have wings and breath fire.
His first level spell cannot replicate the flap of the wings, the thud of its weight as it moves, the harrowing roar, or the heat and the stench of the fiery breath.
Saving throw modifiers for the mostly 1st level villagers would be something like :
Making a big dragon say 14 HD (-13)
Missing sound, smell(breath), tactile (Thuds), thermal(breath) (-4)
Never seen a dragon (-1)
caster level 1
So total will power modifier 17 as a bonus to the villager saves.
Net result is that the majority of villagers come out to watch the pretty light show, and toss the wandering performer some copper for his troubles. 1 in 20 are worried that it is real but are soon convinced by everyone else.
He probably would have been better making it look like he had a number of ogre henchmen say 2
Making a big Ogre -4
Doubling them -1
Missing sound, smell -2
Seen ogres before 1
Level 1
Total = +5 probably be a lot more successful (and with a few more levels he will make it a much better thing)
I apologise for the rambling nature of the above - but I hope that I have given you some ideas of your own.
One point of recommendation.
If you're going to play a spell caster which focuses on illusions, don't play an Illusionist. Play a Sorcerer.
The high CHA, Bluff, UMD, ability to spontaneously add still/silent, etc. are all extremely helpful.
See, this is what I see as a major reason behind the flaws in illusion as a specialization, or even mechanic in general. The best illusionist ISN'T the specialized wizard.
Illusions as a whole are severely lacking in a clear definition, just as the above posts clearly point out, as there appears to be a wide interpretation of illusions as a mechanic. Even so, what mechanics ARE there are such a narrow view of what it could be. Glamers, Figments, Phantasms, etc, are poorly defined mechanically. Illusion spell selection feels unfinished, and half of the spells feel tacked on. This isn't wholly the fault of Pathfinder, it's largely carried over from previous systems. The trouble is, it *still* hasn't been expanded upon and fixed.
Where are the illusions to change what other spells being cast appear as? Where are the illusions that mimic spells themselves? The alter other spell? Illusions to alter item appearances? Illusions that are so well done and convincing that they have actual (if limited) physical effects to those that cannot see through the ruse? There's a couple spells that /can/ be wedged in to fill in a few of these, but they're mostly too general in inelegant in execution.
In fact it seems that some of the best illusionist powers are given to non illusionists!
Bards get Fascinate, Druids get the Thousand Faces ability, Clerics can get the Trickery domain and with it several cool illusion powers, and even Rangers get Hide in Plain Sight.
Why can't an Illusionist have a Thousand Faces?
Fact is, Illusion needs two things. One, a hugely reworked and expanded spell school, and two, a better, dedicated class. Such as what the Summoner got.
|
|
Isn't it odd. Back in 1st ed and Ad&D the Illusionist was a separate class with a unique spell list. In second ed they introduced the concept of magic schools and integrated the spell list with the general Wizard spells.
NOW we want Illusionist to be different ...
(but for what it's worth I agree 100% I LIKED the illusionist when they were a separate class rather than an option)
Honestly I believe it could work if given a different twist with wizard specialization and a far better spell selection. But since the wizard specializations are already set in stone, AND the door has opened up for the "super specialists" (ie: Summoner class), then that could very well be the superior alternative.
|
|
Super specialist Illusionist? How about calling them the Phantasmist.
Charisma based prepared Arcane caster? i.e its the force of their personality that helps make their spells believable.
The old AD&D Illusionist required Int and Cha as their required scores and basically had every spell from every list that had Illusion/Phantasm as its schools type, plus a whole lot of conjuration and charm type spells at higher levels. Also spells that played with light, darkness and even shadow stuff (quasi real). Colour spray and Prismatic spray were 2 of the signature spells (obviously along with the Phantasmal force line).
In Unearthed Arcana (the original AD&D version not the later 3.5+) a number of additional spells were added such as Dream (which was a form of Wish spell) Chromatic orb (a low level conjured object whose effect was based on level and colour) and Alter self (which allowed a quasi real self polymorph) Normal Wizards got access to Mount, but the illusionist got Phantom steed.
In general if you wanted a spell that would fool, misguide, create images/sounds/colours or even some semi real objects, affect lighting - it was all there in the Illusionists spell list. If you wanted to play a class that blew things up, there was always the regular wizard, Illusionists couldn't throw the normal spells such as fireball or lightning bolt (although their shadow line of spells could imitate them so realistically that you could be shocked into taking damage if you failed to disbelieve them).
Now a days I don't see that variation any more. Even as so called specialist Illusionist can cast fireball regardless if its a prohibited school or not.
Now here is the crunch - if it is felt that there is a need for the 'Old Style' Illusionist then perhaps this should be addressed by Paizo. If not then why is it seen then that a super special summoner is needed?
Surely all the counter arguments to adding a "Phantasmist" class can apply to adding the Summoner? And likewise all the arguments for adding the Summoner can apply to the Phantasmist?
As always your mileage may vary and this is NOT an attack on the Summoner per se. Its just as I was writing this I started thinking what a can of worms this could be.
|
|
@Mirror, Mirror
The lack of noise? or of wind from the wings? The shake of the ground? The smell of the beast?
If these elements are missing from the dragon then the lack of them _may_ tip off the victims.
However given that the wizard has gone to such lengths to affect his targets Id have to say that there should be some kind of penalty to their save or perception.
Consider an illusion of a rolling bank of fog. Do you interract with it when you enter? Why do you get a save?
A figment cannot make something look like something else. In this sense, a figment isn't a fog cloud -- it just "looks" like a fog cloud. It's really a figment. If someone were to enter a figment fog cloud, it would be like someone entering a figment dragon. The illusion would automatically be disbelieved by everyone watching.
Or hearing someone cry out. Is that an interraction with the Ghost Sound spell? Can you save vs that?
Only two spells have rules that state that hearing a sound counts as interaction - ventriloquism and ghost sound. There are two approaches to take: either all figments count hearing a sound as interaction, or all figment spells besides ventriloquism and ghost sound don't count sound as interaction. I tend to go with only ventriloquism/ghost sound counting as interaction.
In the extreme: Major image a large white dragon, a flying, imp. invis. illusionist is floating in the head. When the "dragon" breathes, the wiz casts cone of cold. The illusion only covers the AoE of the cone. People inside make a save or take cold damage. Did they also interract with the illusion? Exactly what is it about taking cold damage from a white dragon's breath weapon tips them off that the White Dragon is an illusion?
Mechanically this wouldn't work exactly like you say with regular major image and one caster simply because of the timing. When the caster casts cone of cold, the caster needs to concentrate to make an illusion do something -- you can't cast a spell while concentrating on another spell. Assuming the caster is invisible, it would look like a cone of cold is emitted from a static dragon. It would look a bit like a Stilled cone of cold. Either way, there's no disbelief save.
This would work much better with programmed image -- that spell can have the figment dragon "breathe" the cold while the caster casts the cone of cold. Again, there's no interaction with the dragon, but unless the cone of cold is Silent, a mage can use spellcraft on the verbal component to determine that it's a cone of cold spell. Someone could put 2 and 2 together to know to study the dragon carefully (to see if it's an illusion) if the dragon "breathes" a cone of cold spell.
You could potentially have two casters at work to do this; one caster controlling the major image figment and one flying caster producing the cone of cold. In this case, no one interacts with the illusion while taking the cone of cold, so there's no save. The verbal component is still an issue though. . .
The summoner isn't really a specialist wizard. The summoner is an arcane spell caster and that is the sum total of their similarity to Wizard. All the same, I'm not sure the summoner was a good game design as all it seems to do is give a wizard the ability to steal thunder from the fighters and monks.
Yeah because that's hard to do and totally wasn't happening previously.
Consider an illusion of a rolling bank of fog. Do you interract with it when you enter? Why do you get a save?A figment cannot make something look like something else. In this sense, a figment isn't a fog cloud -- it just "looks" like a fog cloud. It's really a figment. If someone were to enter a figment fog cloud, it would be like someone entering a figment dragon. The illusion would automatically be disbelieved by everyone watching.
There is nothing that says figments disappear when disbelieved. In the case of the fog cloud, others would see someone walking into a cloud of fog. Anyone who still believes the fog is there will still see it. Only the person who walks in would get the save, as he would notice its not quite like normal fog and something is off about it. People who disbelieve would see through the illusion.
There is nothing that says figments disappear when disbelieved. In the case of the fog cloud, others would see someone walking into a cloud of fog. Anyone who still believes the fog is there will still see it. Only the person who walks in would get the save, as he would notice its not quite like normal fog and something is off about it. People who disbelieve would see through the illusion.Consider an illusion of a rolling bank of fog. Do you interract with it when you enter? Why do you get a save?A figment cannot make something look like something else. In this sense, a figment isn't a fog cloud -- it just "looks" like a fog cloud. It's really a figment. If someone were to enter a figment fog cloud, it would be like someone entering a figment dragon. The illusion would automatically be disbelieved by everyone watching.
Quick question,
I create a 15' radius of illusion. The illusion is of darkness.
I alert my fellow party members that it is an illusion and they disbelieve.
Can they now see through it? Or do they just know that the darkness is an illusion, but it's still there for them?
They get a bonus on the save to disbelieve, thus making illusionary darkness potentially more powerful than actual darkness.
Illusions are awesome.