|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I had started a thread the other day about whether or not you could spellcraft a wand to identify the spell being cast, and the reason for the thread was being I was curious as to the effect that successfully spellcrafting an illusion spell would have. I figured that I might be better off starting a new thread on the subtopic of illusions and disbelief.
Under the rules, if you can make a spellcraft check against a DC 15+Spell Level to identify a spell as it is being cast, as long as you can see the caster. If you are successful, you know what spell they are casting. This takes no action.
For illusions and disbelief, anyone who is faced with proof that an illusion isn't real doesn't have to make a saving throw to disbelieve the illusion. If someone communicates that an illusion isn't real, everyone else gets a +4 bonus to their saving throw.
So really, I guess I have two questions:
1: If you successfully spellcraft an illusion, do you auto-disbelieve it? Because if you know that what they are casting is an illusion, you must therefore know that what they create isn't real. Or do you just get a +4 to your saving throw?
2: Does the spellcraft check allow you to make a saving throw vs the spell? The rules say that you are required to either study an illusion carefully or interact with it to get a save, and while the book doesn't say so, this is extrapolated out to mean that you need to at least make a move action to study the image. A spellcraft check however doesn't require an action, which would mean that if it allows you to make a save, you are skirting the requirement that you study the illusion by making a move action.
1: If you successfully spellcraft an illusion, do you auto-disbelieve it?
Yes. You have irrefutable proof. Although things can get interesting when an invisible caster creates a real Wall of Fire while a visible caster creates the illusion of one.
2: Does the spellcraft check allow you to make a saving throw vs the spell?
No. You have not interacted with the actual illusion, merely witnessed its creation.
True.
1: If you successfully spellcraft an illusion, do you auto-disbelieve it?Yes. You have irrefutable proof. Although things can get interesting when an invisible caster creates a real Wall of Fire while a visible caster creates the illusion of one.
Which is why you don't have irrefutable proof. Unless you have proof that the spell effect being observed was created by the casting you witnessed, you can't know for sure.
Heck, with the existence of incorporeal creatures and objects, I wouldn't even call passing your hand through an object 'irrefutable proof'.
Yar!
I have been wondering this myself of late. There are some points to consider against letting a successful Spellcraft check allow one to auto-disbelieve an Illusion spell (the two important ones in my mind are as follows):
1) While you* know he's casting "Illusion spell X", you are not able to learn from that Spellcraft check exactly what he's creating. (examples of "did he just make that, or is it real?" can go on forever)
2) It seems unba- I'm loath to use the word unbalanced... unfair to have a skill have the potential to completely negate an entire school of magic.
Due to these reasons, I'd lean towards a successful Spellcraft check against an Illusion spell to grant you a +4 bonus to your save to disbelieve if you interact with it further, as opposed to letting you auto-disbelieve it.
* This (and all subsequent "you"'s) is a general "you" meaning anyone to whom the statement applies. It is not a direction of statement to any particular person.
~P
Even if you go with the 'successful spellcraft auto-disbelieves' idea, sometimes subtle uses can get through anyway.
I see the enemy caster cast a spell. I identify it as illusionary terrain. I look around... but nothing looks different. *Headscratch* Huh... why didn't it take? *Watches the party fighter disappear into the ground.* Oh... a pit spell with a fake 'ground' on top. That was clever. "Oh, um, look out for the concealed pit, guys. It's right over there, but it's covered by an illusion."
(Party Fighter) "Will someone get me out of here? Please?"
I have to admit though- subtlety at that level is getting pretty close to the GM actively trying to find ways around a game mechanic.
Yar.
... subtlety at that level is getting pretty close to the GM actively trying to find ways around a game mechanic.
The reverse of this (that is, the PC is the Illusionist) can seem like passive-aggressive "teach those players how to think properly" tactics. If enough (not even every) enemies see through the characters spells simply due to a skill check, the Player will be either feel invalid or feel forced into "playing dirty/sneaky/subtle tricks" to do anything... either way, that player will be frustrated.
Please note: this is not a counter to this statement, but an addition to it. There are many sides to this die, and I think it's important to see all the sides (or as many as possible) at once in order to fully appreciate and understand what is going on. To see the proverbial die for what it actually is.
(that feels like a better phrase than "two sides to the coin". To me, at least)
~P