Can an illusion (silent, minor or major image let's say) of an archer shoot illusionary arrows? or would that count as two separate "objects" created by the spell?
Should be able to create an archer shooting arrows, but the arrows won't have any effect. They should also vanish after getting to a certain point. That would make it more obvious that to many people that something is not right.
Yeah I assumed the arrows could not extend past the range of the spell.
Was more interested in creating illusionary archers behind a foe to make them appear like they were ambushed or "add" archers to battlements.
Was more interested in confusion and subterfuge, like a good illusionist should be.
I would think of illusions less single objects and more like a 3D TV-image.
Even the space between arrow and archer is part of the illusion, only the illusionist decided that the illusion projects reality.
So what wraithstrike said would also be my interpretation. I would let the arrow vanish when it hits the area limits of the spell. If the "target" of the arrow is within that area you might even try to to give him a wound that bleeds. He obviously won't react to it but others might believe the thread. Or perhaps just miss on purpose so you don't have to bluff any wound. The oppopent will stil feel threatened under covering fire.
Here's another question.
Let's say I have the Effortless Trickery (no need to concentrate) and Threatening Illusion (opponents believe illusions are threats, Illusion can now flank opponents) feats and I have a high intimidate skill.
Can I use a Major Image of a 1/2 Orc to Intimidate my opponents?
Would I get the bonus for being a 1/2 orc?
Can I use effortless trickery to have the illusion make intimidate checks while I cast other spells?
Would that be too OP?
|
Be careful asking these kinds of questions on the boards.
If you're a GM just looking for ideas, great. But, if you're a player, or even worse, a player in a PFS game, how illusions work is heavily dependent on individual GM interpretations.
This is a legacy of the system. While there have been various "interpretations" of how illusions work given by game publishers over the years, it is really hard to put in writing, meaning that each GM reads the spell differently. For instance, one GM might give characters a Will save just by looking at an illusion, others might require some sort of active "disbelief", and yet others might not give any save unless the character had a reason to think the illusion wasn't real.
tl;dr: If you're a player, be sure to ask your GM before trying anything you read on these boards (or anywhere else).
Be careful asking these kinds of questions on the boards.
If you're a GM just looking for ideas, great. But, if you're a player, or even worse, a player in a PFS game, how illusions work is heavily dependent on individual GM interpretations.
This is a legacy of the system. While there have been various "interpretations" of how illusions work given by game publishers over the years, it is really hard to put in writing, meaning that each GM reads the spell differently. For instance, one GM might give characters a Will save just by looking at an illusion, others might require some sort of active "disbelief", and yet others might not give any save unless the character had a reason to think the illusion wasn't real.
tl;dr: If you're a player, be sure to ask your GM before trying anything you read on these boards (or anywhere else).
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.
Seems pretty clear to me when players can or can not get a save to disbelieve.
I'm asking because I am making a PFS Gnome Illusionist and trying to do my due dilligence in terms of knowing MY stuff when I am at the table.
You know, like you're supposed to.
|
Have your rules down, sorted and your book marked so you can show your PFS GM's where it says you can do the things your trying to do. Watch out for for GM's who sneak in house rules.
Over at Kobold Quarterly Skip Williams did a great job of discussing some abilities and limitations of illusion spells like Major Image which you can read Here. Talks a lot about arrows interestingly enough.
You can't use a figment to create any real effect, that's the most important thing. So you can make an illusion of an intimidating half-orc but it then couldn't take actions to use the intimidation skill. You as the illusionist could use it as a justification to your own intimidate skills but it wouldn't have a racial bonus on anything like that. (Something along the lines of, "It isn't wise to upset a half-orc...")
I was thinking more "in combat" use of intimidate, to be able to use Intimidate via my illusory 1/2 orc and (using a swift action from Effortless Trickery) and then cast a spell if that Illusion was created using the Threatening Illusion Meta Magic Feat.
Perhaps a this more specific question will help?
Thanks for all the responses. Looking back I see my response to uriel22 sounded snarky when you read it. It didn't sound that way in my head, I apologize!
Figments can't have "real" effects, so an illusory half-orc cannot "intimidate" as that would be a "real" effect (imposing the shaken condition).
The best use of illusions (in my experience) is the creation of a controlling effect which enemies are unlikely to interact with. For example, an illusory Wall of Fire creates an effect which most foes will be reluctant to touch (who reaches out to "test" a sheet of flame?), an illusory chasm will likely impede many foe's movement (I mean, they WILL stop as they consider how to bridge it) and so on.
One tricky thing about illusory walls and such - because a figment can't produce a "real" effect, you cannot *hide* behind one (since invisibility would be a "real" effect), so you would be visible *behind* the wall... a sure giveaway as to its illusory nature. So place such illusions with care...
Just to clear up a few points you mentioned:
Effortless Trickery - You still have to concentrate, but it only requires a swift action. This does eat up your 1 swift action/turn, however, so avoid putting other feats/abilities into your build that will require a lot of swift/immediate action use.
Threatening Illusion - One square of your illusion's effect threatens opponents. The only benefit this provides is to be a flanking partner for you or your allies. It has no other mechanical effect other than what is explicitly listed.
Also:
If you're making a dedicated illusionist, you may want to check out Shadow Gambit as a 5th-level feat selection.
One tricky thing about illusory walls and such - because a figment can't produce a "real" effect, you cannot *hide* behind one (since invisibility would be a "real" effect), so you would be visible *behind* the wall... a sure giveaway as to its illusory nature. So place such illusions with care...
Blocking line of sight is not the same as making something invisible. An illusionary wall created with silent image will block line of sight from a creature believing the illusion to a creature behind it.
You wouldn't be able to use it to use the demoralize ability of the intimidate skill. That would be a real effect.
An illusion that can flank is a "real" effect. Threatening Illusions can flank and therefore produce a real battlefield bonus/penalty to foes or allies.
So how is using intimidate through an illusion different than using an illusion to flank someone?
The illusion can flank because you the feat has a special rule that says it can. The specific rule overrides the general.
I agree with WRoy about the wall blocking line of sight, but David Haller's example of a chasm actually doesn't work. An illusory pit in the ground would require a glamer, a figment can only seem to add objects, not take them away. The pit would essentially be making part of the ground invisible, the best you could do is draw a trompe l'oeil pit on top of it.
because a figment can't produce a "real" effect, you cannot *hide* behind one (since invisibility would be a "real" effect)
By that logic, a figment couldn't do anything. Even seeing one would be "a real effect".
When you create the illusion of a wall, it looks like a wall; not like a sheet of glass. It hides whatever would be behind it. Only when the observer is allowed -and succeeds - a save, will the wall become translucent. Until then, it's a solid wall and could well hide a whole herd of elephants.
Where are the explanations of Glamer and Figment differences located?
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html