|
Curious - with silent image (or any of the other image spells for that matter) could you make an illusion of one-way glass or something similar? Nothing in the spell description seems to disallow it - but it seems like it would be overpowered in combination with a rogue's sneak attack.
Is there an official ruling on it?
don't forget that " a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."
i would rule that a hand poking you out of a wall is "proof" enough to warrant an auto-success on the disbelief
The Rouge could be under the effects of Blink, or similar magic that would allow it to pass through the wall, or the wall could have had a phase door placed on it, or the Rouge could be attacking from the invisible door of a magnificent mansion.
That's a problem with proving an illusion isn't real in a world where nothing is really impossible. I've yet to encounter an example of an illusion that couldn't be replicated using entirely real effects.
To the OP: You can't make an illusion that looks different to different viewers; it has to be a single image everyone can see. That said, you can see through illusions that you know to be illusions, so a Rouge could hide behind an illusory wall and freely sneak attack anyone within range.
That's far too much make-up if you ask me.
Dammit. Spellcheck has failed me again!
Rather, I think it's impossible to prove an illusion isn't real in a fantasy game such as this.
For that reason, I tend to rule the 'disproving an illusion rule' discounts magic. Otherwise the rule effectively doesn't exist.
Seriously though, you don't need a one-way illusion. If you cast a normal illusion and then disprove it to yourself (or make the save), then you can see through it just fine.
And remember to give your allies the secret signal of "I am casting the wall illusion now" which gives them a +4 bonus to disbelieve.
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.
Assuming you've got the 10-foot cubes to do it, I believe it's legal to create an illusion of an object that fills one or more of the 10-foot cubes and obscures whatever creature is actually in that square. It doesn't work terribly often, since people who live in the area are likely to be suspicious of a brand-new furnishing/wall/giant barroom mirror; but somebody else who doesn't know the area could be lured into sneak attack range. Of course, after that sneak attack goes off the usual Will save for interaction comes into play.
Anybody know of any rulings otherwise?
I'm certain there's a rule that you can't hide a creature inside an illusion, but I can't find it.
On the other hand, a person could perhaps hide inside an illusion of a hollow object. You couldn't hide a cat inside an illusion of a solid boulder, but perhaps underneath an illusory salad bowl?
Besides the 'just hide behind it' trick.
That conflicts with another one of my design philosophies. It's logical, sure -- but wouldn't that translate to something like, "Roll a Spellcraft check, and success indicates that you know something that can do this and are not allowed to automatically disbelieve"? I don't like it when making your character more awesome ends up with them performing more poorly.
This same line of logic would mean that 20th level Wizards don't get the +20 bonus on Sense Motive checks to believe something that's impossible. "You can't deliver my gold because the lord of midnight froze time and imprisoned you in the secret 25th hour of the day until you made him a golden model of Unseen Ashielvaria? ... Yeah, okay, I've seen stuff like that happen."
I imagine that when your legendary fighter is attacked by, say, an ethereal barbarian hiding in a wall with a longspear, he has a moment of "Hey, that's not right!", shortly followed by, "... Oh, he's probably got that ghost-thing going on or something." But when there's an illusion, your belief is tested right before that realization happens.
but given that your average guy doesn't know what a phase door is, then i would rule that hands extending behind an illusionary wall and hitting you would trigger a " this can't be real" thought from the enemy, thus ending the illusion from him without even rolling a saving throw.
No. That is what the save is for. But he will only get the +4 if someone else points out that it indeed is an illusion. i.e. someone that made their save.
Some GMs really use the "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." as a loophole to simply make illusions not function. Let the dice decide. If the player interacts with the illusion, give them another save.
The wall illusion example can be auto-disbelieved if someone you know that doesn't have wall passing abilities walks through it. That is ample proof. An attacker attacking out of a wall could be many things: ghosts, wraiths, brilliant energy weapons, arcane archer phase arrows. Even your friends telling you something is an illusion doesn't count as proof. Usually an ally sticking a body part through the illusion and suffering no ill effects is enough proof though.
That conflicts with another one of my design philosophies. It's logical, sure -- but wouldn't that translate to something like, "Roll a Spellcraft check, and success indicates that you know something that can do this and are not allowed to automatically disbelieve"? I don't like it when making your character more awesome ends up with them performing more poorly.
I have a problem with using Spellcraft vs illusion spells but not to auto-believe them (which I agree is silly) but to auto-disbelieve them. So you see a caster casting something and you recognize it as a silent image. Now what? Is it auto-disbelief? I would say no. But they do have a reason to suspect so a +4 vs the illusion makes sense.
This is why illusions are so fun: Even if the character suspects it is an illusion, the failed will save indicates he just can't bring himself to believe it is an illusion.