Quicj question. A Rogue 1 / Illusionist 1 casts Silet Image of a second "Rogue" behind his target. The target fails his save and believes the illusion. Does the Rogue get flanking?
No because the target cannot perceive the illusion behind him. Otherwise, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No because the target cannot perceive the illusion behind him. Otherwise, yes.
What? there is no facing in pathfinder, if on the grid there is someone behind him then unless they are trying to conceal themselves, they automatically know they are there.
Yes but it is a wasted action. The spell has a duration of concentration, which requires a standard action to maintain but also prohibits the rogue from making an attack.
However if it was a gnome with the Effortless Trickery alternate racial trait which allows you to concentrate on Illusions spells as a swift action, it would work. However you wouldn't be able to take full attack actions I don't think.
Good question.
Technically no. Although I might allow it.
There is a spell that grants flanking I would rather my players use that spell.
UNWITTING ALLY
Good question.
Technically no. Although I might allow it.
There is a spell that grants flanking I would rather my players use that spell.
UNWITTING ALLY
How is it technically no?
The illusion is real to the target, but would get a new save every time it successfully attacked due to 'interaction.'
Your desire to have another spell used doesn't prohibit another 'general use' illusion spell from doing the same. Especially since the spell you refer to isn't 'core' and may not be available for use to all people.
However if it was a gnome with the Effortless Trickery alternate racial trait which allows you to concentrate on Illusions spells as a swift action, it would work. However you wouldn't be able to take full attack actions I don't think.
That would definitely do it, you are capable of making a full round attack in the same round as a swift action.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Good question.
Technically no. Although I might allow it.
There is a spell that grants flanking I would rather my players use that spell.
UNWITTING ALLY
How is it technically no?
The illusion is real to the target, but would get a new save every time it successfully attacked due to 'interaction.'
Your desire to have another spell used doesn't prohibit another 'general use' illusion spell from doing the same. Especially since the spell you refer to isn't 'core' and may not be available for use to all people.
The issue is that the illusion isn't technically "threatening" the guy in the middle. Personally, I would allow it, but I don't think it works RAW.
No.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack...
A silent immage cannot attack and therefore cannot threaten. It cannot threaten and therefore cannot flank.
There is actually a feat for this though i don't recall what it is called at the moment. 36hrs+ of no sleep will do that...
Hmm, barring that feat (IE Core only) there isn't anything saying that an illusion doesn't threaten. You could overlay part of the illusion in the square of the target so it could 'look' like it is attacking into the targets square (providing a new save for interaction). Again this is an 'intelligent' use of illusions and doesn't cross any of the lines in the core rules (though obviously with new rules intent has become more obvious).
So apparently (with the new information) the answer is No.
Hmm, barring that feat (IE Core only) there isn't anything saying that an illusion doesn't threaten.
Except for the rules quoted above, of course. Figments cannot attack. If you cannot attack, you cannot threaten. Pretty simple. It doesn't matter if an illusion looks like it can attack or not.
Only if the illusion threatens the squares the enemy is in.
Hmm, barring that feat (IE Core only) there isn't anything saying that an illusion doesn't threaten.Except for the rules quoted above, of course. Figments cannot attack. If you cannot attack, you cannot threaten. Pretty simple. It doesn't matter if an illusion looks like it can attack or not.
The problem is perception plays a role with illusions. The targets perceptions lead it to believe the illusions swing at them is REAL, it reacts accordingly as it IS threatening. There isn't anything besides an opinion about illusions not being able to attack (read the spell and the illusion & figment school), I haven't seen anything in the core rulebook to back up that opinion. The feat does make the distinction.
The problem is perception plays a role with illusions. The targets perceptions lead it to believe the illusions swing at them is REAL, it reacts accordingly as it IS threatening.
Not according to the definition of "threatened squares," listed above.
There isn't anything besides an opinion about illusions not being able to attack (read the spell and the illusion & figment school), I haven't seen anything in the core rulebook to back up that opinion. The feat does make the distinction.
I refer you to the figment descripter.
...
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
Silent image gives no attack bonus, cannot cause damage, nor produce real effects (including a +2 flanking bonus). The descriptor calls out being useless for attacking. It cannot attack. It cannot threaten because it cannot attack.
I think there is more to flanking then one might imagine.
For every actually attack there is probably numerous attacks, possibly numerous hits, there is just no damage taken or given.
As a note, you could use your Silent Image spell to create the illusion of uneven or slippery ground (ie faking casting a spell that makes this stuff), which would force your opponent into making acrobatics checks to stay up/move (assuming a failed save), and deny him his dex bonus that way... Note that you wouldn't be affected by the area of "uneven" terrain - you know it's an illusion.
No this wouldn't work.
The second you put your hand... or foot through the illusion you would then know it wasn't an illusion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to allow this at my table. To do otherwise is... what's the opposite of cheese? "Sure, it's an illusion, and he believes it's real, and he's responding to it like it's real, and if it were real, it would provide flanking. But the rules say it can't do anything useful. Like actually fool people. I know, opposite of cheese. Hands are tied. Probably better you find some sort of RAW abuse method I can feel bad about not being able to deny, than find RAI and flavorful uses for the fluff of rules."
Seriously, illusions are about fooling people. Let it fool people. Make perception rolls if you feel you have to work 'be fair' to the NPC redshirt (and if your NPCs aren't wearing red shirts, see if their nametag says Mary Sue). But don't nerf-in-combat the lowbie mage's possibly only applicable spell. Or worse, one of the sorc's baked-in powers. Don't deny illusions of flankers to flank, or illusions of furniture to _look_ like rough terrain, illusions of obscuring mists to provide miss chance... until they're revealed as illusions.
I sometimes think flavor of the month comes from people avoiding taking chances on builds, because anything creative can get nerfed at any time, and if you didn't build FotM, you're not in the union.
As a note, you could use your Silent Image spell to create the illusion of uneven or slippery ground (ie faking casting a spell that makes this stuff), which would force your opponent into making acrobatics checks to stay up/move (assuming a failed save), and deny him his dex bonus that way... Note that you wouldn't be affected by the area of "uneven" terrain - you know it's an illusion.
Don't deny illusions of flankers to flank, or illusions of furniture to _look_ like rough terrain, illusions of obscuring mists to provide miss chance... until they're revealed as illusions.
There is an illusion spell that allows all of this. It is called shadow conjuration, and it is a 4th level spell.
Illusions ARE pretty awesome.
If you don't keep an eye on them then can and will be overpowered.
I'll say it: Getting a flanking bonus form a silent image is overpowered.
And using silent image to make difficult terrain is broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so Karlgamer. For example, here I am in combat with X. I cast an illusion, making it obvious that I am casting a spell, and make the image of a bunch of blue-glowing, obviously magical, marbles rolling around on the floor underfoot. In a world where magic is understood to exist, my opponent is going to try an avoid stepping on them: he takes an acrobatics check, which makes him loose his dex benefit. This will be interaction with the illusion, which would give him a saving throw, but he's already committed to the check. The saving throw is anything from him noticing some detail about the marbles that's wrong, to him accidentally stepping on one, and discovering it won't trip him by involuntary experiment...
Incorrect. A silent image cannot force an Acrobatics check. At best you can cause an opponent to believe there are marbles in a nearby square and make them want to avoid that square for fear of having to make an Acrobatics check. But they won't actually have to make one if they end up there.
No, shadow conjuration wouldn't do that; part of the stuff it creates is actually REAL. You can make your saving throw against a Shadow conjuration of a Grease spell, and still slip and fall on your ass... Only a 20% chance but still.
There is an illusion spell that allows all of this. It is called shadow conjuration, and it is a 4th level spell.
A lot of people seem to want silent image, a 1st level figment, to duplicate the effects of shadow conjuration, a 4th level shadow. The latter lets to duplicate grease, summon monster, and fog cloud (respectively to what you and Thornborn want them to do above), and get the effects you are looking at. The former does not. You are trying to apply the power of a 4th level spell to a 1st level spell.
EDIT: For clarity.
stepping on one
Stepping on one instantly breaks the illusion... no saving throw needed.
If one of the marbles happens to run through his foot breaks the illusion. No saving throw needed.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
You are correct to a point. It will not force the opponent to make a check. But why would anything voluntarily step into obvious, hostile, magical effect? The only things I can think of is a spellcraft check allowing the opponent to identity that the spell is a harmless "Silent Image" spell, or a non-intelligent opponent (think Gelatinous Cube).
I am completely correct. You cannot make a creature make and Acrobatics check and potentially fall with silent image. They may or may not avoid the figment, but that doesn't change the fact that figments are not real, cannot cause harm, and cannot create real effects.
That is what I am saying. A lot of people seem to want silent image, a 1st level figment, to duplicate the effects of shadow conjuration, a 4th level shadow. The latter lets to duplicate grease, summon monster, and fog cloud, and get the effects you are looking at. The former does not. You are trying to apply the power of a 4th level spell to a 1st level spell.No, shadow conjuration wouldn't do that; part of the stuff it creates is actually REAL. You can make your saving throw against a Shadow conjuration of a Grease spell, and still slip and fall on your ass... Only a 20% chance but still.
There is an illusion spell that allows all of this. It is called shadow conjuration, and it is a 4th level spell.
So in your opinion what is silent Mage good for. I have to say putting illusionry magic marbles on the floor to Crete difficult terrain seems like a perfectly valid application of the spell. Shadow conjuration is for when somebody makes there save and still gets nailed with the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in your opinion what is silent Mage good for. I have to say putting illusionry magic marbles on the floor to Crete difficult terrain seems like a perfectly valid application of the spell. Shadow conjuration is for when somebody makes there save and still gets nailed with the spell.
Creating the appearance of a hazard (like the appearance of a pit) so an area is avoided.
Creating an opaque barrier to block sight.
Creating the image of a potential target for foes to waste attacks on.
Need more examples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silent Image can't make difficult terrain, but it can make you go around what you think is difficult terrain, or slow down going through what you think is a square of cavalry spikes. And then you get your save, and make it, and it's too late that turn.
SI can't attack you, but it can make you think these two guys are attacking, so you have to watch them both. The harshest I think I could dial my GM-as-hater dial to would be to give a perception check before the flank is established, and then the illusionary dude an initiative roll, and a to hit roll(vs touch), and if the illusion made it, the illusion poofs.
I'm seeing posts that appear to compare the cost of the spell to the effect. That SI can't provide flank, or rough, or whatever, that's all too good for such a lowbie spell. But when that's your only spell?
If a player sits down cold at my table and says, "I cast Silent Image to flank!", I'll say, "What?" But if he tells me how he casts it around the corner, so the illusionary flanker can _walk_ into sight, not just appear, and how the flanker is going to grin, and crouch, and brandish a shortsword teasingly, more mocking than attacking...
Hells yeah.
Because when I GM, It's not about saying 'no'. It's about saying 'cool'.
like the appearance of a pit
You couldn't make a the appearance of a pit, but your other examples are awesome.
You could make an illusions of something that blocks huge swaths of a room.
I mean were talking about "10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)" this is arrange the battle field just the way you want it.
Make obstacles... just don't make them obstacles that your enemy would want to interact with, then you would have to make your obstacles conveniently move away from your enemies.
You are correct to a point. It will not force the opponent to make a check. But why would anything voluntarily step into obvious, hostile, magical effect? The only things I can think of is a spellcraft check allowing the opponent to identity that the spell is a harmless "Silent Image" spell, or a non-intelligent opponent (think Gelatinous Cube).I am completely correct. You cannot make a creature make and Acrobatics check and potentially fall with silent image. They may or may not avoid the figment, but that doesn't change the fact that figments are not real, cannot cause harm, and cannot create real effects.
I think you are misunderstanding of "create real effects"
Create real effects i believe implies that you can't actually make the ground slippery. however... if someone has to go through an area that has an a illusion of danger such as broken glass, they decide hmm maybe i should try jumping over the section of broken glass... so they attempt to jump over it. they fail their acrobatics check and fall down prone... oops..
say a gm creats an illusion.. your character decides he is going to jump over it.. the gm isn't going to say as you go to jump over the glass... because although its really there wink wink... you don't have to jump over it... he is going to let you attempt the jump... what is the point of an illusion than to convince an opponent to do something other than what they would normally do... if they happen to attempt to do something that is difficult... well that is the risk that opponent takes.
they decide hmm maybe i should try jumping over the section of broken glass... so they attempt to jump over it. they fail their acrobatics check and fall down prone... oops..
Yes, they might decide to jump over the illusions. They wouldn't fall down. If you don't make your Acrobatics check you just end up the distance you did make.
Probably now standing on illusionary broken glass that you don't need a saving throw to tell is an illusion.
I didn't know I was going to open uop such a can of worms! lol I was asking this because it seems like a first level illusion spell should be as useful as any other first level spells.
You say that you can't cause an acrobatics check by casting SI grease. yet the first level Grease spells can do just that. So, an illusionist must wait to be able to use 4th level spells to try to get someone to believe they are casting 1st level spells? That just seems like a great way to convince anyone to NOT play an illusionist.
Yes, the SI can't harm anyone. It can swing wildly and convince the person that someone is trying to hit them. Thus, causing them to try to aboid being hit. The SI accidentally hitting them... wouldn't that fall under the saving throw? Oh, he hit me.... and it went through me.... it's not real! Or he fails the save.... Damn, I thought he was going to hit me, I must have narrowly avoided his (place weapon here).
I can see not wanting it to be more powerful than a first level spell... it being a first level spell. However, why shouldn't it be as powerful as other first level spells?
I didn't know I was going to open uop such a can of worms! lol I was asking this because it seems like a first level illusion spell should be as useful as any other first level spells.
Illusions spells are argubily the most powerfull spells in the game. Certainly Silent Image is.
You say that you can't cause an acrobatics check by casting SI grease. yet the first level Grease spells can do just that. So, an illusionist must wait to be able to use 4th level spells to try to get someone to believe they are casting 1st level spells? That just seems like a great way to convince anyone to NOT play an illusionist.
Ah, but silent image can do more then put one measly grease spot on the ground.
The SI accidentally hitting them... wouldn't that fall under the saving throw?
No. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
I can see not wanting it to be more powerful than a first level spell... it being a first level spell. However, why shouldn't it be as powerful as other first level spells?
Silent image is perhaps the most powerful first level spell.
Bullhoey. Shadow Conjuration for Grease can't "force" you take a acrobatics check either.
Stop arguing semantics.
You can just ignore it, and fall (100%) if you fail your save vs Shadow Conjuration, or 20% if you succeed on your save.
You cannot choose to fail the Acrobatics check for moving within a greased area. You can choose to fall prone as a free action on your turn, if you wish. A shadow grease is the same as a normal grease spell if the targets fail their Will saves, or has a 20% channce of being the same if they succeed.
The difference in power between the 2 spells is multifold...
The difference between the spells is evident in their rules text and in the illusion descriptors.
Silent Image can't make difficult terrain...
Fact.
...but it can make you go around what you think is difficult terrain...
Isn't that what I stated above?
...or slow down going through what you think is a square of cavalry spikes.
Wrong.
SI can't attack you, but it can make you think these two guys are attacking, so you have to watch them both. The harshest I think I could dial my GM-as-hater dial to would be to give a perception check before the flank is established, and then the illusionary dude an initiative roll, and a to hit roll(vs touch), and if the illusion made it, the illusion poofs.
Enjoy your house-rules. That is a different sub-forum.
I'm seeing posts that appear to compare the cost of the spell to the effect. That SI can't provide flank, or rough, or whatever, that's all too good for such a lowbie spell. But when that's your only spell?
If a player sits down cold at my table and says, "I cast Silent Image to flank!", I'll say, "What?" But if he tells me how he casts it around the corner, so the illusionary flanker can _walk_ into sight, not just appear, and how the flanker is going to grin, and crouch, and brandish a shortsword teasingly, more mocking than attacking...
Hells yeah.
Because when I GM, It's not about saying 'no'. It's about saying 'cool'.
Again; welcome to the rules sub-forum, where what you think is cool doesn't really matter nor play into the pursuit of reasonable game balance.
You couldn't make a the appearance of a pit, but your other examples are awesome.
You are correct, but the premise remains the same. Thank you, Karlgamer.
Ignoring Rogar Stonebow; Karlgamer seems to have covered that well already. Brofist.
I didn't know I was going to open uop such a can of worms! lol I was asking this because it seems like a first level illusion spell should be as useful as any other first level spells.
Even not being able to create difficult terrain or flank, silent image is still an amazing spell when used creatively within the confines of the rules.
You say that you can't cause an acrobatics check by casting SI grease. yet the first level Grease spells can do just that. So, an illusionist must wait to be able to use 4th level spells to try to get someone to believe they are casting 1st level spells? That just seems like a great way to convince anyone to NOT play an illusionist.
Or the illusionist can just prepare grease. Shadow conjuration's power comes from its versitility of choosing what you need, when you need it.
Yes, the SI can't harm anyone. It can swing wildly and convince the person that someone is trying to hit them. Thus, causing them to try to aboid being hit...Damn, I thought he was going to hit me, I must have narrowly avoided his (place weapon here).
Which grants absolutely no mechanical advantage (like flank).
I can see not wanting it to be more powerful than a first level spell... it being a first level spell. However, why shouldn't it be as powerful as other first level spells?
It is still better than most.
*Catches breath.*
That's taking an acrobatics check.
And the DC for this check is? I mean you can't call for someone to make a check without a DC. You can't ask someone to make a check unless there is a chance they will fail it.
There is no DC.
There is no chance of failing.
There is no check.
There is no loss of DEX.
Are both you and Karlgamer trying to be obtuse? You are correct, stepping on a figment of a Marble will not make you fall.
BUT
If you don't know the marble is a figment, you are going to try avoid stepping on one in the middle of a swordfight... That's taking an acrobatics check. Whether you succeed or fail the check, you're trying, taking the check, and that, not stepping on the figment of a marble, is what removes your dex.
That is objectively wrong.
If the caster just made the image broken ground, you would notice if you failed your acrobatics check - you wouldn't fall... which would negate the illusion I agree. Making your check on the other hand, would not negate the illusion...Either way however, the interaction would still give you a saving throw to recognize the figment
You wouldn't have to make an acrobatics check because the ground is not broken or uneven. If you interact with the illusion you get a save.
The moving marbles image I proposed, is a magician's choice trick. Even if you failed your acrobatics check and doesn't trip, how does the subject know if that's because it's an illusion, or just that he got lucky and the marbles moved away at the wrong (right for him) time? (Remember, the subject is obviously distracted from close observation - he has to worry about the person trying to stick a sword in him...).
Failed what Acrobatics check? You don't make an Acrobtics check. Are you sure you aren't thinking of grease? Sounds like you want to re-flavor grease as marbles, not cast silent image. It is a pretty simple concept that if you allow silent image to copy spells of similar level there would be no reason to take those spells.
That's taking an acrobatics check.And the DC for this check is? I mean you can't call for someone to make a check without a DC. You can't ask someone to make a check unless there is a chance they will fail it.
There is no DC.
There is no chance of failing.
There is no check.
There is no loss of DEX.
The check is based on the difficulty level they set for them selves...
The gm asks them what they want to do to avoid the marbles..
the player states that he wants to jump onto the top of a table and attack from a higher position.
The gm says the table is 4 feet off that ground that is a dc of 16.
The player rolls a 5.. fails his jump and falls on the ground.
As a DM, you don't need to, and in IMO shouldn't, disclose the DC of a check...
Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm ignoring your contrived and ultimately pointless apples to oranges example, by the way.
You can call for fake checks, particularly perception, just to build paranoia among your players... (Sense motive is another good one.)
If you are trying to make an opponent fall with an Acrobatics check, there needs to be a DC (failing it by 5 on balancing equals falling). If there is no DC either they automatically fail (which would make your use of silent image in this case a heinously overpowered spell-and it is already really good without letting it do that), or they automatically succeed (which means nothing happened either way and the spell was wasted, along with the game time involved for trying to pull such a ridiculous stunt).
You think a skill check can't happen without a DC? Consider an example: A chest that can only be opened with a magic passphrase. There is however, a fake lock on it. Why? to trick thieves into trying to open it, and thus trigger the poison needle trap... So Roland the rogue walks into the room and says I want to open the treasure chest. He takes a perception check to see if there is a trap, but doesn't see it. He sits down to pick the lock... There is no DC to open the lock, so Roland can't take a skill check to open the lock, so there is no chance to for him to trigger the trap... Gee what a waste of the trapmaker's art...
As a DM, you don't need to, and in IMO shouldn't, disclose the DC of a check... Particularly, because in the original case of this thread, it's an NPC (opponent to a player) making the check.
You can call for fake checks, particularly perception, just to build paranoia among your players... (Sense motive is another good one.)
The examples you list are not skill checks in that case. Sure, the player may announce that he is going to try and pick the lock, and make his roll, but that is not a skill check because - as you said - there is no DC. It's not a skill check because the outcome is not unknown. There is no possible "pass" condition in this circumstance.
Extrapolating from that, you cannot fall over on illusionary marbles, because there is no DC for you to not fall over on them. It is not a pass/fail thing. The outcome is known because the DC does not exist, therefore no skill check is required.
EDIT: Second example. Because you keep comparing these marbles to the Grease spell, here's the difference between them. Your reflex save for a Grease spell is against a listed DC, and is for you to *not* fall over on the obviously slippery surface. You are interacting with the spell. As soon as you interact with the illusionary marbles (where real marbles would force a reflex save), you discover they are illusionary and incapable of tripping you up.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
OK. So, from the very last line on there....
You are saying taht they have no effect. Then why must they have an AC? If you have an illusion attacker fighting an NPC and the illusion has an AC, then he is obviously attacking the illusion trying to hit it. He can also miss it since there is an AC. While he's attacking the illusion, why is there no flanking provided?
By real effects, I'm thinking burns, picking someone up and throwing them, breaking an item.... not causing soeone to "believe" that something is happening.
The examples you list are not skill checks in that case. Sure, the player may announce that he is going to try and pick the lock, and make his roll, but that is not a skill check because - as you said - there is no DC. It's not a skill check because the outcome is not unknown. There is no possible "pass" condition in this circumstance.
Extrapolating from that, you cannot fall over on illusionary marbles, because there is no DC for you to not fall over on them. It is not a pass/fail thing. The outcome is known because the DC does not exist, therefore no skill check is required.
Eloquently put.