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.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Does this mean that if someone casts an illusion spell, and a character with ranks in spellcraft identifies it, they don't have to make a saving throw on the basis that they have 'Proof' that the illusion isn't real?
That would be my interpretation, yes.
I would play it that way. If you can identify the spell to know an illusion is being cast, then you shoudln't be surprised when a gaint suddenly appears and you should know that it's merely the manifestation of the spell.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Depends on the spell. Certain mind-affecting illusions may "force" you to believe them unless your force of will saves you. Phantasmal Killer, for instance.
I'm not sure how helpful it is in a discussion about how the general rules for illusions and disbelief work to point out that some spells don't use those rules.
Does this mean that if someone casts an illusion spell, and a character with ranks in spellcraft identifies it, they don't have to make a saving throw on the basis that they have 'Proof' that the illusion isn't real?
No it would not. You have no proof that an illusion spell is being cast. You merely believe that you have correctly identified the spell that is being cast as an illusion. That is not the same as proving it is an illusion.
You could have misidentified the spell. What you believe to be a shadowevocation may in fact be an actual fireball. What you believe to be a wall of stone, may in fact be a silent image.
In short, your character does not know he beat the DC of the spellcraft check, any more than he knows with a 100% certainty that the spell being cast is an illusion. You merely have good grounds to test it.
-Nearyn
I agree with Nearyn, otherwise 90% of illusions would be useless 90% of the time, and I doubt that was the developers' intent.
I generally go with Nearyn, but I explicitly tell the player that their character does think it is very likely to be an illusion and is free to interact with it and tell all the other players about it. At that point, they will often be able to do things that give proof it is an illusion. The only one I always say has 100% proof that it isn't an illusion is the caster. This actually allows party members to choose to benefit from beneficial shadow conjurations or evocations by voluntarily failing the save (if you have 100% proof, you don't even get a save, so you can't believe it).
I would be totally cool with the OP's interpretation at the table too. Both of them seem compelling to me for different reasons, and I respect GMs who make either decision.
In short, your character does not know he beat the DC of the spellcraft checkThen what does it mean to successfully identify a spell as it's being cast?
At my table at least, if you correctly identify a spell, the player can read the spelldescription and his character has that knowledge (with appropriate flavour of course). So aside from the fact that you dramatically get to shout "Friends! be careful, that mage is casting black tentacles!", just before the spell hits, then you get to follow it up with "Get away from the tentacles, that spell persists for at least 40 (42, but whatever) seconds. Raevas! Push your foe into the tentacles! The enemy mage has no control over them, they will attack anything, even their own allies. Rally behind the tentacles, use them to our advantage!"
and so on. If a spell has in its description that you counter it with a certain other spell, or that it is exempt from the abjuration spell you are currently sporting, you know that too, meaning you get to make decisions as appropriate.
The minorest of rise of the runelords spoilers:
Just 2 gamesessions ago, my party was going through Runeforge in Rise of the Runelords, when the witch got struck with a feeblemind. She succeeded in her spellcraft check and just at the last moment before it rendered her stupid she said "wait... is that a feeblemind spe*instastupid*deeeerp". When the rest of the party failed to identify the spell afterwards, the bard sought information about "feeblemind spells" in the Anathema Archive, where he succesfully learned that Heal cured it, leading the to Witch being cured and the party still being alive and well.
-Nearyn
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At my table at least, if you correctly identify a spell, the player can read the spelldescription and his character has that knowledgeIn short, your character does not know he beat the DC of the spellcraft checkThen what does it mean to successfully identify a spell as it's being cast?
You're aware that this includes the school of magic (such as "illusion") and the saving throw line (such as "Will disbelief"), right?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable for someone who successfully identifies that you're casting silent image to also know that silent image is an illusion spell, I'm honestly not sure whether it should count as "proof" for the purposes of instant-disbelief.
On the other hand, someone else telling you "Oh hey, turns out this is just an illusion!" is enough to grant you a reroll with a +4 bonus, and identifying the spell yourself should be at least as good as Fred the Fighter's word, so I think it would be unreasonable to have a successful ID do anything less than that same +4 reroll.
Beyond that, though, who knows?
You're aware that this includes the school of magic (such as "illusion") and the saving throw line (such as "Will disbelief"), right?At my table at least, if you correctly identify a spell, the player can read the spelldescription and his character has that knowledgeIn short, your character does not know he beat the DC of the spellcraft checkThen what does it mean to successfully identify a spell as it's being cast?
I think we're talking past eachother. It's likely my fault.
If the witch in my campaign, Skjordi Summerfell, sees a spell being cast, her player gets to say he wants to try to identify the spell. He rolls her spellcraft and usually gets it right, because Skjordi is quite adept at spellcraft. If the spell is correctly identified, I tell the player Skjordi believes <spell> is being cast, and she may then look it up in the rules and then the player gets to make informed decisions on behalf the character.
Skjordi does not -know- with absolute, 100% certainty that she correctly identified the spell. She cannot -prove- that she did it correctly, simply by standing there and thinking about it. She does get a will-save to disbelieve, because she thinks the spell is an illusion. She has to interact with it, or see someone throw a rock directly through it or something, to have proof that it is an illusion. Even if she casts detect magic, and sees the spell school as illusion, spells such as mask dweomer exist, meaning that the aura of spell being an aura of illusion, is not in itself proof that the spell -is- an illusion. Again, you get a great reason for your character to test it out, or just roll the dice(no pun intended) and try it out. But the spell does not go translucent, just because you concentrated on it for 3 rounds with detect magic active.
Again, let me stress, this is how I run it at my table. And I do not believe it is wrong to say that this would be valid by RAW, too. Although I do not mean to claim that my opinion is the only right one, or anything.
-Nearyn
I've never liked the auto-disbelief rule myself. In a fantasy world where literally anything is possible with the proper application of magic (or possibly divine intervention), how could something be impossible so as to prove a thing is an illusion?
You identified a spell being cast as silent image? How do you know the spell effect you see is the same one you identified being cast?
What if there was a hidden caster casting different spells?
What if you misidentified the spells?
What if the caster had researched a metamagic feat to disguise his spells from being identified?
In my opinion, the only one that could be 100% positive of an illusion is the caster, since he can control his own illusions it stands to reason he would have enough of a connection to them to tell if they're his illusions or not.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've never liked the auto-disbelief rule myself. In a fantasy world where literally anything is possible with the proper application of magic (or possibly divine intervention), how could something be impossible so as to prove a thing is an illusion?
You identified a spell being cast as silent image? How do you know the spell effect you see is the same one you identified being cast?
What if there was a hidden caster casting different spells?
What if you misidentified the spells?
What if the caster had researched a metamagic feat to disguise his spells from being identified?In my opinion, the only one that could be 100% positive of an illusion is the caster, since he can control his own illusions it stands to reason he would have enough of a connection to them to tell if they're his illusions or not.
Very good points, which is why it's important to keep in mind that the rules don't say "100%" anywhere, nor do they use the terms "incontrovertible" or "undeniable" or any of the other qualifiers that forumites like to put in front of the word "proof".
The rules only refer to "proof that an illusion isn't real".
For all the reasons you mention, there's no such thing as absolute, 100% undeniable proof. So when the rules reference being faced with proof, they clearly must not mean that.
But they do mean something. The question is, what?
Very good points, which is why it's important to keep in mind that the rules don't say "100%" anywhere, nor do they use the terms "incontrovertible" or "undeniable" or any of the other qualifiers that forumites like to put in front of the word "proof".The rules only refer to "proof that an illusion isn't real".
For all the reasons you mention, there's no such thing as absolute, 100% undeniable proof. So when the rules reference being faced with proof, they clearly must not mean that.
But they do mean something. The question is, what?
IMO, the rules were written from the mindset that if you can put your hand through a wall it must be an illusion, therefore: Proof. Reading Skip Williams Rules of the Game articles on illusions reinforce my view.
The problem is, it's entirely possible for a real wall to have some sort of Incorporeal property allowing one to put his hand through the wall without the wall being an illusion.
IMO, the rule was ill-conceived without consideration to the numerous corner cases.
My issue is that if putting your hand through the wall is "proof" the the wall is an illusion, what happens if the wall is not an illusion? How can one have "proof" of something that is untrue? A similar argument could be constructed for every example of "proof" I've been able to think of.