|
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.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
First, what qualifies as "interaction" for the purpose of the save? Presumably hitting something with your sword would work, but what about ranged attacks? Hitting something with a spell?
Second, should the DM roll a secret disbelief saving throw for the players if they're interacting with an illusion, or do the players have to announce that their characters are attempting to disbelieve?
The player should have to state that they disbelieve the illusion.
Where do you get that? I don't see it:
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.
Studying carefully seems to corespond to 'state they are disbelieving', but 'or interact it with it...' doesn't seem to have any such connotation to me...?
|
The player should have to state that they disbelieve the illusion.Where do you get that? I don't see it:
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.Studying carefully seems to corespond to 'state they are disbelieving', but 'or interact it with it...' doesn't seem to have any such connotation to me...?
I see interacting and disbelieving as two different things. I guess that is just the old school gamer in me. Back in the early days of D&D players could choose to disbelieve in something that the though was implausible or out of place. The get a save vs the illusion to know its not real.It has always been the way I have played. If they do not state they disbelieve then they would basically never get the save for disbelieving in the illusion.
But I guess disbelieving could also be studying. Same thing different method.
If the big fighter swings a sword at the illusion of a mage then that is interaction and warrants a save. (Note: if the illusion does not react appropriately the spell is broken outright.) Anything less physical is more subjective.
- Gauss
If one of your players is an illusionist, don't be a jerk. Let his spells have a reasonable chance of working, even if the results sometimes change your plans for the night. Be creative and adaptable rather than call for saves at the drop of a hat.
SKR stated the interaction should be a standard action in most cases, and a move action at least.
"I look at it", or "I choose to disbelieve" is not enough.
Agreed. I require a standard action, and the PC thinking, "Hey, that's an illusion," can be that standard action. Alternately, if the illusion interacts with the PC, such as an illusionary attack, that is also sufficient for the save.
For me, there has to be some reason to cause the PC to disbelieve. That's a VERY subjective thing, but I believe it's the only fair way to sort out the illusions spells.
Illusions spells have caused more arguments around our gaming table than almost anything else. I would encourage the GM and player to work out an understanding in advance of tossing around illusions.
|
|
But if you use a standard action to do something to the illusion, you get a save even if you don't explicitly say "I am now attempting to disbelieve by hitting it with my sword/arrow/spell"? I think that otherwise, players may become paranoid and attempt to disbelieve everything the first time they hit it in combat.
And does anything that would deal damage to a creature count as physical enough to be an interaction?
This just came up in a session where two, three rounds of full combat were completed, with several attacks of various types made against a Major Image, before any save was made. It seemed a little excessive.
|
I wouldn't always require a separate action to disbelieve; if someone's interacting it would be a package deal. For example, if you hit the illusion with a sword or shoot it with an arrow, you get the disbelief check for interacting with it. But then, these methods do cost Standard+ actions.
If someone used a free action attack ability that he somehow had, that would still qualify in my eyes; lucky player for having such an attack.
If a player isn't actually interacting, but standing in the rear looking skeptical, I'd charge him an action for it, probably a Move action, to allow him to for example Disbelieve followed by a spell.
right, you aren't REQUIRED to spend a unique action on disbelieving, that's just one option:
until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
The first seems to be the 'active disbelief', the second anything else that is substantial enough to count as 'interacting'. I don't see why the action should matter, if you have a Swift Action Touch Spell Attack, that should count just fine, same with spending your last Iterative (non-action in and of itself) to 'test' the illusion, etc. 'I look at it' isn't really interaction (although it may qualify if it's an Illusion of a Medusa), but if it's an illusion of a NPC talking and you try to engage it in conversation (talking) that may well be enough - even if a real NPC is 'ignoring' you to continue their schpiel they would likely alter their volume, intonation, etc. to over-ride your words (which a passive illusion wouldn't do, although one being actively Maintained could/would - either case would seem to count as 'interaction' by my book).