Repeated Will Saves to Disbelieve


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

This might be a basic question, but I can't seem to find a good answer. Suppose I cast a major image of an orc warrior, and my opponent swings to attack it. At that point they've interacted with the illusion, so they get a will save to disbelieve, even though I can move the illusion so their weapon doesn't go right through it.

I'm fine up to there. But suppose my enemy fails his save, and I concentrate on maintaining the illusion. On their next turn, they attack the illusory orc again. Does my opponent get another save, because he's interacting again? Or no, because he had his saving throw against this spell already, and failed?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Running illusions is very GM dependent. I only allow one save but...

The way I run it is if the player would strike the creature* illusion he will notice his sword doesn't meet any resistance. The illusion can and should react like it's been hit, but illusions aren't solid and can't 'fake' solidity. Once you've hit something illusory it's pretty obvious something is up. Now if the character rolls poorly and can't hit the illusory creature he can continue fighting shadows for even longer.

There are no official guidelines for how hard it is to hit an illusory creature. Generally I just shortcut and use a comparable creature's touch AC, but you might consider using the creature's touch AC or even the spells Will save DC as the armor class target.

Ultimately, after one or two rounds it's pretty obvious the illusory creature isn't a threat one way or another and any intelligent creature would probably just move on.


There's one thing to keep in mind. If characters get solid proof of the illusory nature of an image they automatically make their save. In melee combat such solid proof is extremely easy to obtain. That could be that their weapons just pass through without resistance or that the creatures moves in non-credible ways to dodge the weapon (exception: attack misses).

I personally think it's almost impossible for a caster to maintain an illusion in such a way that it dodges all the opponent's attacks; so you cannot just 'move the illusion so their weapon doesn't go right through it'. The exception is when the attacker keeps rolling low(below 10-15 touch AC or something). At some point the attacker will hit and the illusion will automatically disappear (or become translucent or whatever) for the attacker.

ADDIT: Illusions aren't good for the purpose of creating monsters, unless you have some plan to use the monster for 1 round only. It's better used to create things like illusory walls or other pseudo-terrain control.

I did use a monster illusion for great success once. It involved an illusion of a Balor coming through a gate. Naturally players will try to keep their distance (or in the best case run away). But what I did is create a floor all around them with holes in it, these holes being covered by illusions so it looked like solid floor to anyone. Players enter the room, trap gets sprung, Balor appears and starts to growl and crack his whip, players start their combat turns and disperse, almost all of them falling through the floor. Did I mention there were stalagmites right under the holes on the floor beneath? :D

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Ah, you are totally right, for some reason I'd forgotten that clause "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."


Figments have an AC of 10 + size mod. I'd probably allow the caster a check of some kind to boost that by "dodging" the illusion. Maybe an int check (for anticipating the swings enough to dodge)? That's entirely a house rule, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JrK wrote:
That could be that their weapons just pass through without resistance or that the creatures moves in non-credible ways to dodge the weapon (exception: attack misses).

From PRD, line before the one talked about.

"A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. "

If you fail your save, you do not notice the lack of resistance/other problems with the image. This is not automatic on a successful attack. The whole point of the saving throw is to account for exactly the situation you've described; its included in the existing point of failure, not in additon to it. Playing it as such is significantly nerfing an already limited line of spells... I believe Illusions tend to carry a list of creatures explicitly immune to them up near enchantments.

EDIT: Further, Bobson, the casters adeptness and skill at 'dodging' with the illusion is ALSO already included in the saving throw; more capable casters (whether by higher raw stat or feats such as spell focus) have a more difficult save.


KrispyXIV wrote:
If you fail your save, you do not notice the lack of resistance/other problems with the image. This is not automatic on a successful attack. The whole point of the saving throw is to account for exactly the situation you've described; its included in the existing point of failure, not in additon to it.

It does make sense that illusions shouldn't just have a low touch AC if they're not static. That way, the gnome illusionist with a save DC of 30 actually has a more believable figment than the rogue using a wand. But then, Krispy, what about my original question? Do they just get one save, or do they get to make one for each swing?

Because it also doesn't make sense that failing one save means you're swinging away at this illusion for as long as it exists. Even if I roll a natural 1 on my save to disbelieve the deck of illusion creature, at some point I'm going to figure out that's not a real kobold. No?


aiur4 wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
If you fail your save, you do not notice the lack of resistance/other problems with the image. This is not automatic on a successful attack. The whole point of the saving throw is to account for exactly the situation you've described; its included in the existing point of failure, not in additon to it.

It does make sense that illusions shouldn't just have a low touch AC if they're not static. That way, the gnome illusionist with a save DC of 30 actually has a more believable figment than the rogue using a wand. But then, Krispy, what about my original question? Do they just get one save, or do they get to make one for each swing?

Because it also doesn't make sense that failing one save means you're swinging away at this illusion for as long as it exists. Even if I roll a natural 1 on my save to disbelieve the deck of illusion creature, at some point I'm going to figure out that's not a real kobold. No?

From the PRD:

"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."

I dont see anything in the bolded section which indicates that the effects only trigger once. Any time you've fulfilled the conditions specified (studying, which has been indicated to be a standard action equivalent, or interaction, which an attack reasonably qualifies as), you make a save.

Do you have some reason to believe you only get a single save versus such a spell? I've not read anything at all that would imply such.


KrispyXIV wrote:
EDIT: Further, Bobson, the casters adeptness and skill at 'dodging' with the illusion is ALSO already included in the saving throw; more capable casters (whether by higher raw stat or feats such as spell focus) have a more difficult save.

Very good point. So if you fail your save, the illusion dodged, regardless of how impossible it seemed. If you make it, then it didn't.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Do you have some reason to believe you only get a single save versus such a spell? I've not read anything at all that would imply such.

Not explicitly. It's more that other people (including some in this thread) have said there's only one save, and other spells will explicitly say when subjects get an additional save. Personally, I think there should be more than one save against these image spells, but I would have expected it to say so if that were the case.


aiur4 wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Do you have some reason to believe you only get a single save versus such a spell? I've not read anything at all that would imply such.
Not explicitly. It's more that other people (including some in this thread) have said there's only one save, and other spells will explicitly say when subjects get an additional save. Personally, I think there should be more than one save against these image spells, but I would have expected it to say so if that were the case.

I'm fairly certain this is a 'Specific overrules General' situation. The specific rules for Illusions state that you get a save when you interact with an illusion, and dont place limitations on that statement; any general rule that would imply you get one save per spell is overruled, in much the same way that spells that allow multiple saves (say, Hold Person) specifically tell you under what circumstances you get those saves.

Illusions just have it as a general rule under their type as opposed to in the text.


Why should your weapon passing through something automatically let you disbelieve?

Me, I'd only make illusions of ghosts. When the enemy's sword passes through, you have it moan, "fool, lesser magics cannot harm me."


cranewings wrote:
Why should your weapon passing through something automatically let you disbelieve?

I was wondering the same thing myself. In a world fit to bursting with magic nothing can be taken for granted, especially by high level PCs and NPCs who've likely seem more than their share of mind-bending impossibilities.

I can understand the need to uphold the disbelief rule as it exists for the sake of playability. But it seems so easy to defy common sense with magic. Imagine a dragon waking up in its cave to see a group of adventurers readying their weapons. Naturally, the dragon attempts to incinerate the trespassers with its breath. But the adventurers ignore the blast; appearing utterly unburnt while the floor beneath their feet glows red hot. What's the common sense conclusion the dragon should assume? If the PCs were merely illusions then the dragon should, by the rules on figments, see through the illusion automatically since it has clear proof that they aren't real. But it seems just as likely or even more likely that a savvy dragon would assume that the PCs are real and merely sporting fire protection spells or items. So, if it assumes the latter, should the dragon automatically disbelieve the figments?

In the same way, if a GM sprung a creature through which my weapons passed harmlessly, I might guess that it's a figment or, if my GM is a known rat bastard, I might assume otherwise and call out a warning to my allies: "Watch out guys, this mofo has got some sort of funky 3rd party feat, spell, item or class ability making him intangible to my weapons!!!"


Ambrus wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Why should your weapon passing through something automatically let you disbelieve?

I was wondering the same thing myself. In a world fit to bursting with magic nothing can be taken for granted, especially by high level PCs and NPCs who've likely seem more than their share of mind-bending impossibilities.

I can understand the need to uphold the disbelief rule as it exists for the sake of playability. But it seems so easy to defy common sense with magic. Imagine a dragon waking up in its cave to see a group of adventurers readying their weapons. Naturally, the dragon attempts to incinerate the trespassers with its breath. But the adventurers ignore the blast; appearing utterly unburnt while the floor beneath their feet glows red hot. What's the common sense conclusion the dragon should assume? If the PCs were merely illusions then the dragon should, by the rules on figments, see through the illusion automatically since it has clear proof that they aren't real. But it seems just as likely or even more likely that a savvy dragon would assume that the PCs are real and merely sporting fire protection spells or items. So, if it assumes the latter, should the dragon automatically disbelieve the figments?

In the same way, if a GM sprung a creature through which my weapons passed harmlessly, I might guess that it's a figment or, if my GM is a known rat bastard, I might assume otherwise and call out a warning to my allies: "Watch out guys, this mofo has got some sort of funky 3rd party feat, spell, item or class ability making him intangible to my weapons!!!"

Ambrus, a successful save represents exactly what you're noting here. If you save, you notice the lack of resistance, or the lack of effect, of your interaction. If you fail your save, you failed to notice whichever effect of the illusion would have allowed you to realise it was false.

Lower level illusions are easier to save against because there are more ways to realise there are issues with the illusion; a lack of sound, lack of heat, etc.

The Will save is the games way of having a character mechanically have X% chance to realise, "Wait a second! My sword passed through this guy with no resistance! This could be an illusion!"; the exact mechanism (lack of physical resistance, lack of sound, etc) is irrelevant.

This is described, explicitly, right in the rules for Saving Throws and Illusions. If you failed your save, you failed to notice the inconsistencies.


This thread DOES raise a VERY important question about the following statement from the PRD though;

"If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

Whats to stop me from repeatadly communicating the existence of an illusion until someone successfully rolls a save? If we state an arbitrary limitation on this, suddenly we HAVE set precedent for arbitrary limits on saving throws versus illusions...


Illusions and interactions are always very GM based. I think each group/GM has to decide what is reasonable for themselves with regard to second saves.


That's true, of course. I was just hoping there was more of a consensus than there apparently is. For my part, I think either the "illusionary touch AC" or repeated will save methods are fine; using both would nerf the spell too much, and using neither makes it too powerful.

KrispyXIV wrote:

"If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

Whats to stop me from repeatadly communicating the existence of an illusion until someone successfully rolls a save? If we state an arbitrary limitation on this, suddenly we HAVE set precedent for arbitrary limits on saving throws versus illusions...

This seems less arbitrary to me. The viewer must "successfully disbelieve an illusion and communicate this fact" in order to grant "a" saving throw. I'd argue that you can only disbelieve it once, and that only grants "a" single saving throw. Of course, I'd also say that anybody who makes that extra saving throw can agree, granting anyone who still failed a second attempt at the +4, etc. Or, once you disagree, you could just, you know, walk directly into the illusory dragon, so no saving throw would be required.

Basically once someone disbelieves the illusion, all their friends will disbelieve it very soon.


It's been a long time since 2nd edition, but I think the impression that an illusion dissapears if attacked comes from then, where I believe that was the case. I think that attacking it is proof that the object isn't real. Generally, attacking a giant fire breathing lizard ineffectively is due to hard scales and thick hide. This is noticably different from passing harmlessly through it.

There should be some sort of significant advantage to using illusions of diaphinous enemies, attacking them would not be as obvious an indication that something was amok.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always run it as one save per interaction per person per round. Therefore, if you made a single attack or a full attack against an illusion you would get only a single save. If you and your three fellows interacted in similar fashion, you would each get a save.

Never would you get a save more than once a round.

Perhaps this will help? Here's an official article on how illusions were meant to be run in v3.5 D&D. Not much has changed in regards to illusions since then:

All About Illusions, Part I
All About Illusions, Part II
All About Illusions, Part III
All About Illusions, Part IV


Ravingdork, I read all of those articles before posting here. They don't really give much direction one way or the other.


Ravingdork wrote:

I've always run it as one save per interaction per person per round. Therefore, if you made a single attack or a full attack against an illusion you would get only a single save. If you and your three fellows interacted in similar fashion, you would each get a save.

Never would you get a save more than once a round.

I like how you handle this, and may borrow use it in games I run :) Its a good standard.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aiur4 wrote:
Ravingdork, I read all of those articles before posting here. They don't really give much direction one way or the other.

Really? I found part three to be quite informative. It even answers many of the questions proposed in this thread.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

cranewings wrote:

Why should your weapon passing through something automatically let you disbelieve?

Me, I'd only make illusions of ghosts. When the enemy's sword passes through, you have it moan, "fool, lesser magics cannot harm me."

My assumption is that you notice two things.

#1 - My sword passes through it with no resistance
#2 - It hasn't hurt me

So while you may very well believe you are seeing it and hearing it, you have no reason or incentive to attack it. Further, it's not a huge stretch for someone to just say (in a world with lots of magic) "my senses are fooling me" and move on to actual threats or just ignore it.

Now granted, stupid creatures might not pick this up ever, that's all good and they shouldn't really get a new save unless someone brighter than they tells them what they are facing. This is one of those cases where you get to see if your players are cool enough to play a dumb character dumb because there isn't a ton you can do to avoid some meta-gaming here.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've found that summoning real monsters followed by a small army of look-alike illusions allows said summons to last a LOT longer and to be far more effective than they otherwise would.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Ambrus, a successful save represents exactly what you're noting here. If you save, you notice the lack of resistance, or the lack of effect, of your interaction. If you fail your save, you failed to notice whichever effect of the illusion would have allowed you to realise it was false.

Except that this argument seems to me to entirely ignore the line that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." Or, to put it another way, it's true that if you fail the save, you believe the illusion, but whether you actually need to make the saving throw at all is essentially a DM judgment call.


Glendwyr wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ambrus, a successful save represents exactly what you're noting here. If you save, you notice the lack of resistance, or the lack of effect, of your interaction. If you fail your save, you failed to notice whichever effect of the illusion would have allowed you to realise it was false.

Except that this argument seems to me to entirely ignore the line that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." Or, to put it another way, it's true that if you fail the save, you believe the illusion, but whether you actually need to make the saving throw at all is essentially a DM judgment call.

Clear proof an illusion isn't real is your buddy walking through an illusionary stone wall.

It should be much, much harder to prove an illusion of a creature or other more transient or constantly changing being actively maintained was not real IMO.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

WHIFF!!!

My sword just went right through that thing!

That's pretty damned clear something is up.


Dennis Baker wrote:
My sword just went right through that thing!

The point that Krispy (rightly I think) brought up is: how do you determine you actually hit the thing so you might notice your sword goes through? Her answer (and she provides decent arguments, though there is still room to debate) is that the saving throw a character makes determines this, as it is part of the clause "saving throw to determine whether a character notices something is up".

If it is already determined the sword goes through, I'd say a character needs no saving throw to notice something is up. It is in more ambiguous situations (the monster constantly dodging) that the saving throw is a potentially useful mechanic for solving this. Though I feel it is iffy in the sense that a WILL save determines the PHYSICAL ability of someone to hit. I admit this is also interpretation on my part of 'what is going on'.

Krispy also proposes that it is a good measure of the power of an illusionist to use the save in this way. I will offer that it is iffy in that it places the determinant on the willpower abilities of the opponent. Maybe a good compromise (but this moves squarely into houserule territory) is that an evading (moving) illusion requires a reflex save instead of a will save.

An alternative with AC's for figments (like for mirror image) also seems logical.


KrispyXIV wrote:

Clear proof an illusion isn't real is your buddy walking through an illusionary stone wall.

It should be much, much harder to prove an illusion of a creature or other more transient or constantly changing being actively maintained was not real IMO.

I share your opinion, but "clear proof," not being defined in the rules, is really completely up to the GM.

After all, in a world of magic, passing through a wall doesn't mean the wall is illusionary.

Liberty's Edge

I also do the one-save-per-interaction thing. I treat the "is obviously an illusion" point as simply being the point when the character feels it's no longer worth treating as anything but an illusion. It's not really them making their save so much as saying "I choose to believe this is an illusion because anything else would boggle my mind too much."

They could theoretically be wrong.... but generally aren't. Creatures that seem like an illusion but aren't are extremely unlikely, and *something* would eventually work on them if they were a creature.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Glendwyr wrote:
After all, in a world of magic, passing through a wall doesn't mean the wall is illusionary.

No, but it DOES mean it isn't a real wall--it means its a passage.


Dennis Baker wrote:

WHIFF!!!

My sword just went right through that thing!

That's pretty damned clear something is up.

something is up, maybe, but not necessarily that the creature is illusionary... after all the creature could simply be incorporeal or under a magical effect similar to the old 2e Forgotten Realms spell Irongaurd .


Ravingdork wrote:
No, but it DOES mean it isn't a real wall--it means its a passage.

Read again. The wall is real, but the caster and anyone who meets the conditions the caster sets can pass through it ethereally; to everyone else, the passage is inaccessible and thus might as well not be there. It's entirely possible for me to walk through the wall because I meet the conditions, while if you tried to walk through it all you'd get is a bloody nose.

And that being the case, seeing me pass through a stone wall which blocks you is not, in fact, proof that the wall is illusionary.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I'd allow for saves after the first, provided circumstances change from when you first made your save.

So, for instance, you study an illusion of an orc and get a save.
You fail. That's a real orc! Spending more time examining the orc won't get you any more saves.

You attempt to attack the orc. Your level of interaction with the orc changes, so you get a new save.
You fail. Dang, stupid orc! Must have a pile of hit points! (Remember, with abstract hit points, not every hit a 'hit')

Your friend makes his save. "Hey, dude, that orc you're fighting is illusory!" Circumstances have changed, you get a new save.

...and so on.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

I'd allow for saves after the first, provided circumstances change from when you first made your save.

So, for instance, you study an illusion of an orc and get a save.
You fail. That's a real orc! Spending more time examining the orc won't get you any more saves.

You attempt to attack the orc. Your level of interaction with the orc changes, so you get a new save.
You fail. Dang, stupid orc! Must have a pile of hit points! (Remember, with abstract hit points, not every hit a 'hit')

Your friend makes his save. "Hey, dude, that orc you're fighting is illusory!" Circumstances have changed, you get a new save.

...and so on.

I like this method a lot, but...illusions don't die. Wouldn't your party fighters be stuck fighting the illusions forever simply for failing one save?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I figure intelligent creatures are reasonably so. If a GM puts an illusion out and your players spend three rounds attacking it to no avail but it does nothing but swear at you or swing a sword and miss, the players are going to figure something is up.

If it's an illusion of a powerful creature they will quickly get suspicious if it doesn't hurt them or attempt to do so. If the illusion is of a weak creature they will equally quickly start wondering why they can't kill it. Players aren't dumb and neither should NPC/ intelligent monsters be dumb.

And ultimately that is what the suggestion is "People are too dumb to figure out something they are fighting is a fake". The characters and monsters in the game are generally pretty good at what they do, suggesting that you can put a shadow puppet up there that they will swing at indefinitely is just absurd because they aren't stupid.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dennis Baker wrote:

I figure intelligent creatures are reasonably so. If a GM puts an illusion out and your players spend three rounds attacking it to no avail but it does nothing but swear at you or swing a sword and miss, the players are going to figure something is up.

If it's an illusion of a powerful creature they will quickly get suspicious if it doesn't hurt them or attempt to do so. If the illusion is of a weak creature they will equally quickly start wondering why they can't kill it. Players aren't dumb and neither should NPC/ intelligent monsters be dumb.

And ultimately that is what the suggestion is "People are too dumb to figure out something they are fighting is a fake". The characters and monsters in the game are generally pretty good at what they do, suggesting that you can put a shadow puppet up there that they will swing at indefinitely is just absurd because they aren't stupid.

Classic case of metagaming.

It's not about intellect at all. Sure the player might know something is up, but as far as the character is concerned, the thing in front of them is just exceptionally hard to hit. After all, the character can't tell the difference between a goblin and a 20th-level goblin ninja except the latter is probably very hard to hit.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I totally disagree. People (aka characters) are not that stupid.

If you are fighting a guy and you can't hurt him and he isn't hurting you, what would YOU do? I don't care how believable looking he is, no-one is going to stand there for 30 seconds whiffing at him. Particularly not if someone else is clobbering me or one of my friends.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

If the player chooses to keep swinging against the illusion, yeah, they could keep swinging for a long time.

But at some point both the player and the character should notice that they can't hit/injure the illusion, and the illusion can't/won't injure them in return. What they do at that point may or may not give them a new save.


Yeah, if you are fighting an illusion of something really tough and it isn't hurting you I would think the default reaction would be more like 'why is this thing toying with us?'
and something weak that isnt dying would get a 'argh, these things are harder to hit than pugwampi'

Your ability to automatically figure exactly what is going on is represented by the Will Save to disbelieve.

That said, if you are truly unaware of the fact that it is an illusion (as in you the person in real life) and you decide to 'leave this guy for later' so you can deal with what appears to be a bigger threat, that would not be metagaming.


My assumption with hitting an illusionary wall is that it is "real" to me unless I make the will save.

To be clear I am not saying the wall exist just because I think it does, but my senses act as thought it exist.

As an example if I swing at an illusionary(spelling?) wall, and I fail the will save my sword stops just as if I had hit a real wall. If I make the save upon hitting the illusion my sword keeps going, and I realize it is not real.

PS:I don't know if that is how illusions really work*, but it is good fluff as to how someone can swing or otherwise interact, and not just ignore the illusion altogether.

*I don't think there is any real fluff/flavor for it.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

There isn't anything in the rules that supports the idea that you have to fake impact with something that doesn't exist if you fail your save. It's a visual illusion, a perfect hologram if you will.


Dennis Baker wrote:
There isn't anything in the rules that supports the idea that you have to fake impact with something that doesn't exist if you fail your save. It's a visual illusion, a perfect hologram if you will.

I understand that, but it was more fluff than a rule since the rules don't say how the interacting(fluff wise) works, and why you might fail or not fail a save.

It stretches verisimilitude to see a weapon go through a wall, and my character to not know that wall is not really there. The same applies if I try to lean up against it, and I fall through it.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

That's kind of my point. Illusions only have the power to affect what you see, not what you feel. Failing a Will save makes you believe the illusion is there, but when your character's sword passes through the wall his other senses kick in and he will recognize something is wrong.

For your character, the verisimilitude of his reality just got kicked in the balls. This thing is totally real... but it's not!


For what it's worth, note that illusory wall explicitly spells out both of the following:

  • You get a Will save to disbelieve
  • The wall does not fool your sense of touch and touching it "reveals the true nature of the surface."

    Glean from that what you will.


  • Yes and for that recognition he gets to roll another will save since he interacted with it. The idea that he's just going to consistently fail will saves while swinging for thirty seconds isn't terribly likely, statically, unless the great blue gods of luck are against him or the dm has sent the greatest of all illusionists to screw with the party fighter instead of pegging him with something a little more substantial.

    Also stop to consider that everyone interacting with the illusion each time is getting a roll as well. Metagaming here, which is what I would call such a decision, is completely unnecessary imo.


    I just did some research and it takes Hallucinatory Terrain or Mirage Arcane to include texture.
    I am starting to dislike this school of magic more and more, not that I ever really used it, but still.

    The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Silent image is a first level spell. It's a great way to do simple tricks for fooling people for a few rounds. Fake walls, fake allies, fake covers over pits...


    Everyone seems to be ignoring that "proof = no save required" clause.


    What constitutes as proof?

    1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Repeated Will Saves to Disbelieve All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.