| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The goal of this thread is to try to come up with some kind of standardized guidelines or rules for dealing with illusions. Yeah, I know that’s a big ugly can o’ worms, but bear with me…illusions should be a fun way for the players to be creative, but most DM’s dislike them because of the headaches they cause, in large part because the DM doesn’t know how to figure out when to allow his NPC’s to disbelieve them in a way that doesn’t overpower the game and short-circuit his plans, or underpower the illusions and disappoint the players. With a standardized set of guidelines, maybe they can become a fun and balanced part of the game.
All of the following is just a suggested starting point, I’d like everyone’s feedback and make this a “community” effort. Once the dust settles, I’ll summarize the majority opinion.
I’m more concerned with Figments right now, so if you’re more knowledgeable about Glamers, Shadows, etc., please speak up if they would act significantly different under the guidelines suggested here.
The relevant portions of the RAW are :
1. 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.
2. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
3. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
This leaves us with 3 important questions :
1. HOW or WHEN can a creature justify wanting to "observe it carefully"?
2. WHAT constitutes "interaction"?
3. WHAT constitutes "proof"?
This first post is unavoidably long because of all the definitions, justifications, and examples, so now that you’ve seen the questions you can skip to the end of this post for the summary if you wish.
First off, I cannot praise enough Skip Williams’ discussions on illusions at
Part 1, basic definitions
Part 2, saving throws
Part 3, interacting, automatic disbelief
Part 4, Figments and Shadows
And at
Disbelief, under Saving Throws
Given his credentials, I will take his ideas, examples, and suggestions as RAW, especially since as far as I can tell 99% of the descriptions for dealing with illusions in 3.5 are the same in Pathfinder.
BEING TOLD IT’S AN ILLUSION
Before we proceed any further, I’d like to address the issue of being told the image is an illusion. RAW specifically says that only if someone who has already disbelieved tells you it’s an illusion can you save again, and at +4. Most people extrapolate that (and reasonably so) to : if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you get another save at +4. This bugs me.
Why should the statement/suggestion that what you’re looking at is an illusion have more “weight” when coming from someone who has disbelieved than from someone who hasn’t? Aren’t they really just planting the idea, and allowing you to reconsider? Neither person is offering any “proof”, so why should it make a difference?
On the other hand, if you’re told by the person who created the illusion (and who probably did it right in front of you) that it’s not real, why don’t you automatically disbelieve? Even Skip says at one point, “If the caster points out the illusions [to others],…the DM might want to waive the saving throws and assume disbelief to save time”.
So in the following, I’m going to abandon the “retry at +4” option completely. If someone tells you that it’s an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you automatically disbelieve. This is just what makes sense to me – if the vast majority of opinion prefers to keep those things the way they are, I’ll concede the point (especially if you can give me reasons why).
CAREFUL STUDY
First off, there’s no standard definition of how long “careful study” takes. While it could be justified as a Move action according to the RAW for Perception (“Intentionally searching for stimulus is a Move action”), the vast majority of forum posts seem to indicate that most people think that a Standard action is about right – it takes up enough time that the character can’t cast or attack after they’ve determined that it’s an illusion. Making it a Full-Round action might make illusions too powerful. Anyone disagree with it taking a Standard action?
Something I’ve never seen discussed is whether it provokes an AoO – it does require your focused attention, so that’s a good argument “for”. But in the heat of a battle, provoking an AoO can be a major disincentive to trying to disbelieve if you think there’s illusions around. What’s your opinion on whether careful study should provoke an AoO?
It’s pretty clear that merely looking at or hearing an illusion does not constitute careful study. And PC’s can’t declare that they’re always studying everything carefully, so neither can the NPC’s.
The main problem with careful study is that there’s no standard way to define when a character (PC or NPC) should have a REASON to do it. So I would like to propose the concept (taken from law-enforcement, BTW) of “reasonable suspicion” : if by only observing, you can state anything that seems to be wrong, any specific reason why what you see couldn't be real, then you can study it carefully. Note that “observing” can include any of your long-distance senses (excluding touch), not just sight.
But since magic can do a lot of things (including creating things out of thin air and making things intangible), and most people probably don't know everything it can or can't do, the reason must be very specific, and reasonably within the character’s knowledge and experience. Some examples of reasonable suspicion :
*Person : "I've been in this room many times before, now it's smaller than it should be" (because an illusory wall is hiding the PC’s) or "…and there was never a bookshelf there before"
*Person : “I saw him go into this room, followed him immediately, and there’s no doors or windows, and he’s gone” (maybe he's behind an illusory wall, or maybe the illusory wall is hiding a door)
*Animal : "that thing doesn't smell like it should" (a Silent Image of a creature has no smell)
*Arrows are coming out of that boulder or thru that wall (this is not “proof”, because magic can do many strange things)
*You approach a Silent Image or Minor Image of a Wall of Flames, but don’t feel any heat coming from them (this is “observation”, it wouldn’t be “interaction” unless you entered the area of the flames)
It’s possible that the observer might need a Knowledge check of some sort to justify the reason :
*Knowledgeable person or spellcaster : “wait a minute, he just cast a 6th level spell from a wand!” or "he's been casting all low-level spells, now suddenly he's created a wall of stone???" (Knowledge/Arcana)
*A creature isn’t giving off some kind of always-on, at-a-distance effect (heat, fear, stench, etc.) that you know it should be (Knowledge/whatever’s-appropriate-for-the-creature)
To keep things fair, DM’s must be careful to not allow their NPC’s saving throws unless there’s justifiable reasonable suspicion. As Skip points out, most creatures would pass right by illusions that are already in place without giving them a second thought, unless they were on alert for intruders, chasing the PC’s, or searching the room anyway, etc. (excluding the situations given above as examples). But even most animals or low-INT humanoids (like Orcs) might not consider having a floor of pointed sticks or a wall of stone suddenly appear from nowhere while they’re chasing the PC’s as being unusual – after all, that’s what magic does. Such creatures would deal with what’s in front of them, and would often not even get a saving throw (barring the specific circumstances of the situation that might provide reasonable suspicion).
On the other hand, careful study might also just happen naturally, as Skip points out using the illusion of a guard walking around in a room. A PC might decide to watch the guard’s movements to determine the best way of sneaking past him – well, now he’s carefully studying the image. Or, a PC might want to check the insignia on the guard’s uniform to determine his rank or whatever – again, the PC must carefully study the image to do that. So DM’s must be careful to notice when careful study “unintentionally” happens.
INTERACTION
The problem with “interaction” is in defining what it is. Skip says, “As a rule of thumb, a creature interacts with something upon attacking it, studying it [handled above], touching it, talking to it, targeting it with a spell, or doing something else that one might do with a real creature or object.” Note that if the illusion reacts to your action correctly, you only get a saving throw (we’ll come back to this hair-splitting point later in “Proof”).
But interaction works both ways – if the illusion of a monster or NPC attempts to attack you (whether or not it hits, but if it’s a Figment and it would hit, see “Proof” below), touch you, talk to you, or target you with a spell, it is interacting with you, and so you get a saving throw. But now what if a caster creates an illusion of a large monster in order to Intimidate you without attacking you? So how about this : if the illusion tries to influence your behavior in any way, it is also “interacting” with you.
It is said (and correctly so) that just looking at an illusion should not be reason enough to get a saving throw to disbelieve it, because just looking is not the same as careful study. But consider an illusion of a chair vs. an illusion of a pile of GP. The illusion of the chair does not “tempt” you to go over and sit on it – so no save just from looking at it. But even tho it’s just sitting there, not doing anything, the illusion of the pile of gold will tempt most intelligent creatures to go over to it. So I would argue that the “trying to influence you” rule kicks in here, and the creature gets a saving throw before they change what they’re doing (chasing you, guarding their post, etc.).
It might be tempting to add that using Skills against illusions always constitutes interaction, but Skip gives a counter-example here. Sneaking past that illusory guard from before does not really interact with it, since it doesn’t know what’s going on around it – the PC would roll, and the DM would roll, and the PC would just automatically win! The PC didn’t really do anything that would affect the illusion. On the other hand, if the player rolled a 1 on his Stealth, and the guard didn't react to him, that might provide reasonable suspicion.
PROOF
Skip points out that proof generally means “the illusion fails to function as a real object would” – I’m going to word this as “you interact with it, and it doesn’t act like it should”. If your hand passes thru the wall or door or boulder in front of you, you automatically disbelieve. Some other situations :
*Your arrow or sword goes thru the image of a creature you’re attacking (note that if the image was that of a wraith or shadow, you’d get a saving throw for interacting, but you’d expect a normal weapon to pass thru it, so you would not automatically disbelieve)
*A Gust of Wind cast at an illusory fog does not blow it away
*A Figment takes a swing at you and would hit, but its sword/paw/whatever passes right thru you
Something not addressed in the RAW (or even any forums that I’ve been able to find) is : what happens if you witness such an interaction? If the “retry at +4” rule was still around, that might be a good option, but I’m going to suggest instead that that constitutes a reason to carefully study the image and then roll as usual. That actually fits in quite well with the definition of reasonable suspicion – you observe it not acting correctly.
It’s VERY IMPORTANT to note that “not acting like it should” only allows you careful observation if you’re observing the illusion, while it allows you immediate disbelief if you are interacting with the illusion.
A common situation that comes up in forum threads is : what if a spellcaster sees you casting the illusion, and makes a successful Spellcraft check? In such a case their disbelief is also automatic, since they have proof you were casting an illusion spell.
Finally, what if a spellcaster or knowledgeable person sees you casting a spell (but does not identify it), and knows for a fact that there’s no such spell that can produce the effect that appears? For example, you create a hallway full of pointed wooden spikes coming up from the floor, and with a successful Knowledge/Arcana check the observer knows there’s no such spell. Again, in this case disbelief is automatic. But note that seeing the spell being cast is important – the same person rounding a corner and seeing a hallway full of such spikes would not know how they got there, and so would not (yet) have any reason to even make a save.
SO TO SUMMARIZE :
You can justify careful study (as a Standard action) when :
*There’s reasonable suspicion (possibly with Knowledge checks) = if by only observing, you can state anything that seems to be wrong, any specific reason why what you see couldn't be real
*You witness an interaction not acting like it should
*Someone other than the caster tells you it’s an illusion
You and the illusion “interact” when :
*You attack it, touch it, talk to it, cast a spell at or on it, etc. and it reacts as the real thing would
*It attempts to attack you, touch you, talk to you, or appears to cast a spell at or on you, etc.
*It tries to influence your behavior in any way
Note that any time any of the above conditions occur, the observer gets another saving throw
Proof is :
*You interact with it, and it doesn't act like it "should"
*Being told by the caster it’s an illusion
*Being a spellcaster and making a Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is cast
*Seeing the spell being cast (even from an item) and knowing no spell exists that produces that effect (Know/Arcana)
From these, we can derive 4 conditions that cover a wide variety of common situations :
You are observing, and it’s acting correctly : no save
You are observing, and it’s not acting correctly : reason to observe carefully and then save
You are interacting, and it’s acting correctly : save
You are interacting, and it’s not acting correctly : automatic disbelief
That’s it! What do you think?
If someone tells you that it’s an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.
I concur, that is logical.
Anyone disagree with it taking a Standard action?
Actually yes I do, since as you said according to the rules intentionally looking for stimulus is a Move action so at least there is precedent set instead of just guessing its a Standard.
What’s your opinion on whether careful study should provoke an AoO?
If a player told me “I am going to study this blah to determine if it is an illusion” I would most likely make it provoke. The character is clearly paying attention to said illusion and thus not paying attention to the hostile next to him. I wouldn't push the matter much either way though since there is no actual rule stating it provokes one.
It’s possible that the observer might need a Knowledge check of some sort to justify the reason :
While certainly POSSIBLE to include a knowledge check I was actually sitting here thinking of some situations of how I would use illusions and how I would describe them and each time (such as your arrows from a rock example) I was thinking if the player assumes its an illusion and declares he wants to study it by whatever means its reasonable to me that the character that lives in this world of magic could just as easily make the same deduction and would not need to state to me a reason why he is all of a sudden studying this boulder.
The illusion of the chair does not “tempt” you to go over and sit on it – so no save just from looking at it. But even tho it’s just sitting there, not doing anything, the illusion of the pile of gold will tempt most intelligent creatures to go over to it. So I would argue that the “trying to influence you” rule kicks in here, and the creature gets a saving throw before they change what they’re doing (chasing you, guarding their post, etc.).
I don't quite agree with this. Inanimate objects regardless if they are illusions or not have no real ulterior motives. A chair could be more tempting to a group of really tired adventurers than a pile of gold to someone who cares not for material wealth. So I would give no saving throws for simple seeing an object regardless of what it is. Exceptions that I am not thinking of right now may apply of coarse.
Finally, what if a spellcaster or knowledgeable person sees you casting a spell (but does not identify it), and knows for a fact that there’s no such spell that can produce the effect that appears? For example, you create a hallway full of pointed wooden spikes coming up from the floor, and with a successful Knowledge/Arcana check the observer knows there’s no such spell.
Well the game has rules for casters creating their own spells, I don't think any caster with any knowledge check could say for SURE a spell doesn't exist in that case so I would argue this is moot.
For the most part I agree with you and people who are having trouble running illusions in their games should certainly give this a read through.
Thanks, but that's the same as what I called "Part 3" of Skip's series in my OP.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's interesting that the OP suggests that "carefully examining" an illusion takes more time/effort than the level of examination required to detect traps or find secret doors. So if I encounter an illusory idol on top of a trapped altar, I could (as a move action) examine the area closely enough to spot the trap without having examined the area closely enough to get a save against the illusion.
The silliness there should be self-evident. If you're examining it closely enough to find a trap, then you're pretty obviously examining it closely enough to trigger the "careful examination" save. Making it take longer than that is kinda out of nowhere.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, what if a spellcaster or knowledgeable person sees you casting a spell (but does not identify it), and knows for a fact that there’s no such spell that can produce the effect that appears? For example, you create a hallway full of pointed wooden spikes coming up from the floor, and with a successful Knowledge/Arcana check the observer knows there’s no such spell. Again, in this case disbelief is automatic.
Going to disagree with this. There's no way to know for a fact that a given spell effect doesn't exist since there's always the possibility a caster has independently researched an original spell. Making a high Knowledge or Spellcraft check (being confident in your answer) and not recognizing the spell is suspicious, but not proof of an illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, what if a spellcaster or knowledgeable person sees you casting a spell (but does not identify it), and knows for a fact that there’s no such spell that can produce the effect that appears? For example, you create a hallway full of pointed wooden spikes coming up from the floor, and with a successful Knowledge/Arcana check the observer knows there’s no such spell. Again, in this case disbelief is automatic.Going to disagree with this.
I agree with others who disagree with this. This straddles the line between player knowledge and character knowledge. I occasionally use 3rd Party Published spells to simulate the infinite variety of spells through spell research and to trip my players up.
Ok, I have no problems dropping the "knowing no such spell exists is proof" part. Consider it gone. :)
However, Knowledge checks can still come in handy to separate extensive player knowledge from their low-level PC knowledge for determining "reasonable suspicion". You encounter some creature, and get close enough to it that you *should* be feeling its radiated heat/fear/stench/whatever, but the DM doesn't say anything about it. The player may know something's missing, but his low-level PC may or may not have ever seen or even heard of the creature. On a failed Knowledge/whatever check, the PC has no idea that something's amiss, so no reason to make a saving throw.
Likewise, a player may realize there's something wrong when an NPC apparently casts a Wall of Stone from a wand, but her low-level caster may not make the connection that Wall of Stone is too high level a spell to be stored in a wand. On a failed Knowledge/Arcana, no reason to get a saving throw.
Of course, if it's the PC's casting the illusions, both these examples can work against the DM's NPC's as well! That's the beauty of reasonable suspicion, both sides have to justify a reason for it. As long as the DM is consistent, there will be balance.
Regarding the time it takes to carefully examine something - using a Standard action for that wasn't my idea, I kept seeing it over and over in other forum discussions about it. Many other DM's have house-ruled it that way. But if the opinion here continues to be that it should be a Move action, I have no problem with that. Any other votes, either way?
What about whether or not it provokes an AoO? Only one person has offered an opinion about that so far...
If you and your DM (or you and your players) have a mutually agreeable understanding of when a creature can justify wanting to observe something carefully, and what constitutes interaction and proof, in a way that the DM and players are happy with, more power to you! Seriously, I'm happy for you. If this system is not for you, that's ok.
But you seem to be in the minority, because I've seen many people (both DM's and players) on forums complaining about the difficulty in handling illusions, due to the vagueness of those 3 concepts.
For the rest of us, at least this better defines those terms in a way that's more quantifiable and consistent. And really, at least half those "extra, unnecessary" rules came right from the RAW (and Skip) anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I definitely get your point, and agree that people have vastly differing opinions on how illusions work. What I meant to say was just that you're going in the wrong direction to solve it: you're trying to add more rules to codify everything, when really there's already too much clutter in people's ideas about illusions and it needs to be stripped away so people can see how much simpler the actual rules are compared to what people have worked up in their heads.
Basically, if you just strip away all your history of gameplay, all your knowledge of accepted practice from across editions, all outdated commentary from other systems, all assumptions of how illusions should work; and then just read the Pathfinder illusion rules plainly without mentally filling in the blanks with what you think you already know about them, it's actually really not that bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so the final guidelines are :
You can justify "careful study" (a Move action that provokes an AoO) when :
*There’s reasonable suspicion (possibly with Knowledge checks) = if by only observing, you can state anything that seems to be wrong, any specific reason why what you see might not be real
*You witness an interaction not acting like it should
*Someone other than the caster tells you it’s an illusion
You and the illusion “interact” when :
*You attack it, touch it, talk to it, cast a spell at or on it, etc. and it reacts as the real thing would
*It attempts to attack you, touch you, talk to you, or appears to cast a spell at or on you, etc.
*It tries to influence your behavior in any way (intimidate, tempt, distract, etc.)
Note that any time any of the above conditions occur, the observer gets another saving throw
You get an automatic disbelieve when you see "proof", which is :
*You interact with it, and it doesn't act like it should
*Being told by the caster it’s an illusion
*Being a spellcaster and making a Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is cast
(6 of these 9 guidelines have already been suggested in one form or another by RAW, Skip, or general forum consensus)
|
I will just clump up several thoughts,
I believe that Spellcraft checks which identify spell being cast as of Illusion school don't give the privilege to the person who identified spell a chance of completely disbelieving it or even +4 on disbelieve Save. Person can definitely suspect it being illusion, but it can still block sight, provide concealment, soft cover, or whatever illusion figment does.
Illusions work fine as they are currently, but it definitely requires a level of precision when they are at work. Most of time, people struggle to acknowledge what qualifies for an interaction and proof for that illusion isn't real. Answer usually requires some dose of mechanics and real-time answer. Would a guard patrol receive a free Will Save against illusionary wall? Mostly likely no. Would a guard patrol under alert receive a free Will Save against illusionary wall? Probably yes. Would a guard patrol which isn't under alert, but is loitering around this area with illusionary wall receive a free Will Save against illusion? Most likely, with additional Perception or simple Wisdom check.
Automatics disbelieves tho are rare thing in my book, but in those cases, illusions are already discovered.
Malag
If someone tells you that it’s an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.I'd rather say that this still requires a will save to disbelieve, just with a modifier. Assuming the caster is a trusted ally, you should get a fairly large bonus. Of course, a very weak-willed character might not believe the word of a new wizard who conjures something very realistic.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
I would say the caster telling you that it is an illusion qualifies as proof under most circumstances.
The RAW is GM fiat. Deal with it.
I would say the caster telling you that it is an illusion qualifies as proof under most circumstances.This assumes that the caster is telling the truth, which may fail to be the case for a variety of reasons. Of course, one could resolve this via a sense motive check.
1. Caster casts spell.
2. Caster tells fighter it's an illusion.
3. Fighter asks to sense motive.
4. Caster rolls bluff, plus a hefty bonus if it's actually true (as far as the caster knows). Fighter does not see caster's roll.
5. Fighter rolls sense motive.
6. Fighter succeeds: detects no deception if true; otherwise, senses deception.
7. Fighter fails: detects no deception.Of course, 99% of the time, the caster will be telling the truth, so the fighter might as well believe the caster and accept it as proof. In the other 1% of cases, however, you might want to get the checks that you're otherwise entitled to. Always accept the word of your caster buddy? Fine. But that's an action that has consequences, even in the real world, where it's not possible to perfectly impersonate or control others' minds.
I thought I covered this by saying "under most circumstances." The way I see it is this: if the caster does not want a person to be tricked by an illusion, there is no need for a save, and the person is not tricked.
Seriously, unless you have a pathological PC (or player) : if my spellcaster comrade-in-arms, whom I've been thru many a battle with (with many reciprocal saving-of-butts), and who I KNOW can cast illusions, casts a spell while I'm watching that makes something appear out of thin air, and then he tells me it's an illusion, why on earth should I NOT believe him? And in which case, why on earth should I NOT automatically see the thing in front of me to be an illusion? Just my 2 copper's worth...
P.S. - and don't forget, even Skip <sound of heavenly chorus> thought it was reasonable for other PC's to automatically disbelieve if the caster told them it was an illusion.
I would actually disagree with Skip on one point, and posit the following: careful study is totally distinct from interaction, and these constitute separate ways of disbelieving illusions. Take Shadow Conjuration, for instance. While the text for illusion spells states that careful study or interaction are usually required, Shadow Conjuration only ever mentions interaction. I would say that interaction means the following in this context: you do anything to the illusion, and the illusion does something to you. Simply perceiving a shadow can never reveal its true nature, not even if you use a standard action to study it. What does constitute interaction, then, in my mind?
1. Attacking or being attacked (also: touching or being touched)
2. Targeting with a spell (not including in the AoE) or being targeted by (or included in the AoE of) a spell.
3. Targeting with an opposed skill check. Note: intimidation used against a single target would constitute interaction, but not Dazzling Display including a shadow in its AoE.
4. Engaging in conversation (more than what a free action would constitute).
If you got the impression from my posts that careful study is in any way related or similar to interaction, that's my fault, not Skip's. They are not.
But seeing as I always tried to keep them separate in my discussions, I'd be curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion, so I can be more clear in the future.4 of the 5 things you listed for interaction are exactly the same things that Skip listed, and that I listed in the OP (attacking, touching, targeting with a spell, talking).
The exception is opposed skill checks, which Skip gave a specific counter-example for, so I would say that's not an "always", but situationally dependent. Against a properly programmed illusion of a guard, trying to sneak past it could constitute interaction.
However, thank you for your comments, and especially about Shadow illusions (I'm not that familiar with them yet), you have pointed out some needed changes to the guidelines :
=========================================================================== ==============
For "careful observation" :
*Viewers always fail in their saving throws due to careful observation against Shadow illusions
(I worded it that way because the DM should let them roll if they can justify careful observation because they suspect an illusion, but they will just always fail).
For "interaction" :
*Opposed skill checks might constitute interaction, depending on the kind of illusion and the actions taken
Clarification :
Note that the first time any of the above conditions occur, the observer gets another saving throw
(in other words, you don't get repeated saving throws for the same condition happening multiple times, but if the situation changes, you do get another saving throw)
Seriously, unless you have a pathological PC (or player) : if my spellcaster comrade-in-arms, whom I've been thru many a battle with (with many reciprocal saving-of-butts), and who I KNOW can cast illusions, casts a spell while I'm watching that makes something appear out of thin air, and then he tells me it's an illusion, why on earth should I NOT believe him? And in which case, why on earth should I NOT automatically see the thing in front of me to be an illusion? Just my 2 copper's worth...
P.S. - and don't forget, even Skip <sound of heavenly chorus> thought it was reasonable for other PC's to automatically disbelieve if the caster told them it was an illusion.
The only scenario I can think of this might not apply is in some role-playing situation where the friendly illusionist needs to save the group's fighter (or what-have-you) from some thing and the only way to do it is to trick him with an illusion.
|
|
Seriously, unless you have a pathological PC (or player) : if my spellcaster comrade-in-arms, whom I've been thru many a battle with (with many reciprocal saving-of-butts), and who I KNOW can cast illusions, casts a spell while I'm watching that makes something appear out of thin air, and then he tells me it's an illusion, why on earth should I NOT believe him? And in which case, why on earth should I NOT automatically see the thing in front of me to be an illusion? Just my 2 copper's worth...
It's not a question of belief, it's a question of proof. In our world, every lawyer should tell you that a word of a human being isn't a proof of anything. These rules transfered to the mathematical algebra today and even to the electronics. I am speaking from a completely logical point of view.
If you know that your buddy casted illusion, that's fine, you even get a +4 bonus on Will Save to disbelieve it and can choose to ignore it, but illusion is still there not successfully disbelieved yet. What's even worse, should an ally of yours tell you it's illusion of his own creation, intelligent creatures who understand that language can notice it altho players can disguise this with simple code words.
A real proof that illusion is illusion is witnessing a person passing through a wall, illusion passing through you harmlessly, etc.
Malag
Interesting thought:
I'm a fighter with no knowledge or spellcraft. My sorcerer friend casts a spell and a dragon appears! I prepare to fight, but the sorcerer says, no worries its my illusion. I believe him and the illusion fails to convince me (his word is proof)
What really happened: The sorcerer friend just cast mage armor, and someone else summoned the illusion. My ballsy bluffy sorc lies to me about him being the source, but he is right about it being an illusion perchance. I have a true justified belief that the dragon is illusory, yet the original caster did not inform me.
I would say this is an argument against the caster's word providing automatic proof. Or it is an interesting argument for "disbelieving" illusions being more literal.
EDIT: spelling and clarity
Interesting thought:
I'm a fighter with no knowledge or spellcraft. My sorcerer friend casts a spell and a dragon appears! I prepare to fight, but the sorcerer says, no worries its my illusion. I believe him and the illusion fails to convince me (his word is proof)
What really happened: The sorcerer friend just cast mage armor, and someone else summoned the illusion. My ballsy bluffy sorc lies to me about him being the source, but he is right about it being an illusion perchance. I have a true justified belief that the dragon is illusory, yet the original caster did not inform me.
I would say this is an argument against the caster's word providing automatic proof. Or it is an interesting argument for "disbelieving" illusions being more literal.
EDIT: spelling and clarity
It is a good point, however I don't think there's any need to overthink it. In that situation, the fighter needs to make a will save.
My only hang-up about the caster telling the fighter it's an illusion and that counting as proof is that it would have to be the caster's intent to not affect the fighter in that manner in the first place. Maybe that's more of a house rule than RAW but I think the illusionist should be able to choose if they want an ally to be affected or not by an illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is GM fiat. Deal with it.
No.
I think the illusionist should be able to choose if they want an ally to be affected or not by an illusion.
Um, so...if the caster wants an ally to be affected by an illusion, the caster doesn't tell him it's an illusion. Then the ally can only get a saving throw under all the same conditions as everyone else. That's RAW, BTW.
That allows for practical jokes, or totally realistic reactions on the part of his allies if the caster is running some kind of bluff against a bad guy, etc. etc.
The specific reason I decided to make the disbelief automatic if the caster tells you is this : there are some situations such as hiding behind a "false wall" in a room, or inside a boulder outdoors, where the goal is that those outside can't see in (until they make their saving throw), while those inside can see out. Those situations are mentioned often in forum threads as one of the handiest things illusions can do for you.
But what's the point in doing that if half your party can't see out, because they failed a saving throw?
So if the caster tells you that the thing that's just sprung up in front of you is an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.
I think the illusionist should be able to choose if they want an ally to be affected or not by an illusion.Um, so...if the caster wants an ally to be affected by an illusion, the caster doesn't tell him it's an illusion. Then the ally can only get a saving throw under all the same conditions as everyone else. That's RAW, BTW.
That allows for practical jokes, or totally realistic reactions on the part of his allies if the caster is running some kind of bluff against a bad guy, etc. etc.
The specific reason I decided to make the disbelief automatic if the caster tells you is this : there are some situations such as hiding behind a "false wall" in a room, or inside a boulder outdoors, where the goal is that those outside can't see in (until they make their saving throw), while those inside can see out. Those situations are mentioned often in forum threads as one of the handiest things illusions can do for you.
But what's the point in doing that if half your party can't see out, because they failed a saving throw?
So if the caster tells you that the thing that's just sprung up in front of you is an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.
I don't appreciate the combative tone (bolded words) and since I am in agreeance with you 100% I don't think it was really necessary. But thanks for reiterating what we have both already said and agreed upon. :)
|
|
The specific reason I decided to make the disbelief automatic if the caster tells you is this : there are some situations such as hiding behind a "false wall" in a room, or inside a boulder outdoors, where the goal is that those outside can't see in (until they make their saving throw), while those inside can see out. Those situations are mentioned often in forum threads as one of the handiest things illusions can do for you.
But what's the point in doing that if half your party can't see out, because they failed a saving throw?
So if the caster tells you that the thing that's just sprung up in front of you is an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.
In your example, disbelief would be automatic if party member touches the "false wall" from the opposite side as he sees that he's hand is simply passing through it. If he stares at the wall with confidence that it's illusion it's Will Save with +4 bonus. So in the end, party can see out just perfectly.
Problem with claiming that your allies automatically disbelieve your illusions if you want them, is that it makes illusions way more powerful and flexible, while allies in fact are treated just as any other creature. There is nothing within rules to even suggest this.
The specific reason I decided to make the disbelief automatic if the caster tells you is this : there are some situations such as hiding behind a "false wall" in a room, or inside a boulder outdoors, where the goal is that those outside can't see in (until they make their saving throw), while those inside can see out. Those situations are mentioned often in forum threads as one of the handiest things illusions can do for you.
But what's the point in doing that if half your party can't see out, because they failed a saving throw?
So if the caster tells you that the thing that's just sprung up in front of you is an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.
In your example, disbelief would be automatic if party member touches the "false wall" from the opposite side as he sees that he's hand is simply passing through it. If he stares at the wall with confidence that it's illusion it's Will Save with +4 bonus. So in the end, party can see out just perfectly.
Problem with claiming that your allies automatically disbelieve your illusions if you want them, is that it makes illusions way more powerful and flexible, while allies in fact are treated just as any other creature. There is nothing within rules to even suggest this.
Hence why, in my post, I suggested that it is a house rule:
My only hang-up about the caster telling the fighter it's an illusion and that counting as proof is that it would have to be the caster's intent to not affect the fighter in that manner in the first place. Maybe that's more of a house rule than RAW but I think the illusionist should be able to choose if they want an ally to be affected or not by an illusion.
I agree, that in general, PF/3.5 is pretty strict on who is affected by various effects, and illusions, as written, are not exempt from that. I would say that what qualifies as proof that the players are witnessing an illusion though is quite subject to interpretation and is difficult to nail down. I think that is what ZenFox was trying to do with this thread.
From my subjective GM viewpoint, if an illusionist is casting a spell, is a member of the party, and explains to the party what he is doing and why he is doing it, then those other party members probably don't need to make a save, they can just see through the illusion.
Just re-checked this thread before I have to leave for the day. The only thing I have time to say right now is that the bolded part of my last post was not meant in any way to be combative.
Going over all the posts, we're tied 2/2 for "if a caster tells you it's an illusion..."
1)you get a +4 to your saving throw vs.
2)you automatically disbelieve
Well, including my vote :) it's 2/3 in favor of auto disbelieve.
The original goal of this post was to collect a standardized set of guidelines for disbelieving illusions, because the RAW were too vague.
I felt that if we all had a common starting point that DM's and players could agree upon, illusions could be much more fun for everyone.
This is the only point that people seem divided about. As always with any set of rules, the DM using them is free to modify them.
So I'm going to leave them as they are, with the understanding that you're free to modify them as you see fit.
The current summary is :
You can justify "careful study" (a Move action that provokes an AoO) when :
*There’s reasonable suspicion (possibly with Knowledge checks) = if by only observing, you can state anything that seems to be wrong, any specific reason why what you see might not be real
*You witness an interaction not acting like it should
*Someone other than the caster tells you it’s an illusion
(Note that viewers always fail in their saving throws due to careful study against Shadow illusions)
You and the illusion “interact” when :
*You attack it, touch it, talk to it, cast a spell at or on it, etc. and it reacts as the real thing would
*It attempts to attack you, touch you, talk to you, or appears to cast a spell at or on you, etc.
*It tries to influence your behavior in any way (intimidate, tempt, distract, etc.)
*Opposed skill checks might constitute interaction, depending on the kind of illusion and the actions taken
Note that the first time any of the above conditions occur, the observer gets another saving throw
You get an automatic disbelieve when you see "proof", which is :
*You interact with it, and it doesn't act like it should
*Being told by the caster it’s an illusion
*Being a spellcaster and making a Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is cast
|
|
Here's how I handle it. The idea is to balance the power of illusions, both for the caster and also for the observers (generally the players).
First, the principle of illusions is (my interpretation) that they mess with the mind, not that they create a hologram-like image (or sound or whatever), and because of that, anyone interacting with an illusion automatically "knows" it's true until proven otherwise.
So if you create an illusion of a brick wall to cover an alcove, anyone that views the illusion both automatically believes it's a solid wall, but also their own mind will prevent them from punching through it and will fill in the gaps (within the bounds of the specific spell) so that it will feel/look/taste/sound/smell like a real brick wall. If they (in character) just randomly want to try to push their hand through it, their mind is going to trick them into feeling resistance and their hand will stop (not go right through the illusion).
However, other circumstances can allow them, or aid them in discovering the trick. Just how odd or unbelievable the illusion might be can give them a chance to recognize it as an illusion/disbelieve, or might offer bonuses. It might give them clues to even begin to realize it as an illusion. In the brick wall above, if there is a small stream of water that flows right into the wall, or if they are in a combat and someone's arrows start flying right through that section of wall (there is no actual resistance), that's a pretty big clue something is up, BUT NOT THAT ITS AUTOMATICLLY AN ILLUSION. If there are other reasonable possibilities that could account for it, than the observers are still 100% affected by the illusion, but do have a reason to study it, and maybe a bonus on their Save to disbelieve.
For actively studying an illusion, I default to a Full Round Action that does Provoke, and as much as 3 Full Rounds if using something like Detect Magic. I disagree with the comparison to finding a trap, (in which case the general idea is that there is a hidden trap, and they are most likely going to be in this area or that area. It's kind of reversed with Illusions, where the base idea is that it is absolutely real, and you are not actively trying to figure out it's an illusion, you instead are noticing a few oddities about it and trying to figure out what is going on, and might come to the realization that there is no spoon). Specific circumstances might also change this, so if the illusion is to create false attackers (say two orcs, and the spell includes all senses, but is not an illusion that is partially real), as soon as the first arrow or blade hits that orc without damaging it at all or sending it flying, observer gets a save (with a bonus). May or may not be automatic, but pretty good chance the character (not the player) is going to figure out it's an illusion.
The last bit, Proof, is really going to depend on the circumstances, but the default mentality is NEVER that it's an illusion, unless the character is just that stupid. They might think something is off about that dragon. They might see (or be told) that it's radiating Illusion School magic, and the illusion might even be a bit far fetched, but that's not enough for the character to just risk their life on the off chance it might be fake. Especially if there are other possibilities, even if those possibilities might be uncommon or odd. Maybe it's a Haunt. Maybe it's the ghost of a dragon, (both still potential lethal threats). Maybe it is a real dragon that used it's own spellcasting to cast Blur on itself (an Illusion) and you are detecting that and missing because of the miss chance?
|
|
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
---
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.
---
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
---
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
---
Phantasm: A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression, all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see. Third parties viewing or studying the scene don't notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.
---
Shadow: A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.
I'm not seeing anything that contradicts what I said, and note I did include, (though admittedly it's easy to overlook), that it applies within the bounds of the individual spells in regards to which sense can be affected.
I would argue that the difference between a Figment and a Phantasm is that the Phantasm specifically only affects given targets, not everyone that would otherwise see the illusion. So only some would se the example of the brick wall if it where a Phantasm, while everyone would see the Figment.
|
|
True. And a lot of it honestly for me, comes down to how I feel at the time in the game.
The truth is that Paizo/Pathfinder has left a lot of things very vague. 3E made it a pretty consistent point to clarify things (and to support them with rules and remove contradictions). So many people are quick to assume that Paizo both invented and mastered the d20 system, and toss out the older clarifications on things. In my opinion, that really just hurts the game. My opinion (and it's just an opinion) takes into account how it's been ruled over the past versions of the game. In some, all Illusions directly affect the perceptions and sensations of the viewers. Invisibility would not make you unable to be seen (though that's the practical effect it has). Instead what it does s trick the minds of everyone else so that they do not recognize your presence. You are still 100% visible, but no one will see you or remember you as there, similar to how ide from Undead works, (your not invisible, undead jut can not detect you).
Hi Guys,
I intentionally resurrect this thread, because I think it has enormous value in clarifying the workings of illusions. My group has benefitted greatly for it. Thank you ZenFox!
I also hope the developers for Pathfinder 2 make use of it. It's about time that after more than 15 years of unwanted discussions and bickering, Illusions get a workable and solid position at the RPG table.
Any suggestions how we bring it to the attention to the developers?
They covered a lot of this in official form in the Ultimate Intrigue book in 2016.
I don't share your enthusiasm about what's being 'clarified' in UI. It's still very general en vague. Given the fact that this thread is from early 2014, a perceptive developer might have take note and seen it's merits.
The basic guidelines of ZenFox42 are very helpful:
4 IMPORTANT conditions that cover a wide variety of common situations :
1) You are observing, and it’s acting correctly : no save
2) You are observing, and it’s not acting correctly : reason to 'observe carefully' and then save
3) You are interacting, and it’s acting correctly : save
4) You are interacting, and it’s not acting correctly : automatic disbelief"
Also his guidelines for a REASON to "careful study" are an addition I've been propagating within my groups. I've seen many an earlier session where metagaming was the sole reason for "careful observation", which could lead to tedious discussions.
In essence, observation and Interaction is the mayor reason why a (auto) save is given. careful study is something that comes up a lot less.
Also, check out this article about illusions for even more useful information. Technically for 3.5, but most of the info is still valid for PF1.
It helps. I think that this is the (4 part) article from WotC Skip Willliams' or based on it. I've been reading this article too, some 10ish years ago. Unfortunately, It leaves a lot of gaps. I've been playing Illisionists since 2nd ed AD&D, but then and also in 3.5ed Illusions have not received the attention it deserved.
This is were there OP from ZenFox42 comes in. Any idea how to bring it to the attention to PF2 developers?
I personally found the illusion guide from The Trickster's Handbook (by DDS) to be very useful when dealing with illusions.