Bending in the wind of Table Variation

[Jiggy]

I know we talk a lot about trying to reduce table variation, but sometimes it's a built-in part of the ruleset. As such, sometimes it's good for a player to find ways to work with table variation instead of chafing against it.

Case in point: I've been kicking around the idea of making an illusionist. It would be a fun use of my boon allowing a Thassilonian specialist, it would be unique because most folks locally don't play illusionists, and there's potential room for creativity/humor/fun.

Of course, part of the reason I don't see a lot of illusionists running around is probably because of all the table variation on how illusions and disbelief work.

And that's okay. :)

So I was thinking, how could I work with my GM if I'm going to be bringing the disbelief rules into every session? I came up with an idea, and I'd like feedback on it from the PFS community.

-------------------------------

Before the session starts, I approach the GM. I say something along the lines of: "Hi! I'm playing an illusionist. I know everybody runs illusions and disbelief a little differently, so I wanted to get an idea of how you run them at your table before we start. After all, my character would know how his spells work, so it's best if I do too. Here:"

I then hand him a card I will have prepared. It's divided into three boxes, each labeled with a quote from the illusion rules:
Box 1: "Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory..."
Box 2: "...until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."
Box 3: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw."

Upon handing him the card, I explain: "If you could jot down a basic example of each of those three situations from the illusion rules, then I wouldn't need to pester you with questions during the game. I'll know what to aim for and what to avoid, without having to waste table time asking about every single illusion I cast. Sound good?"

Lots of smiling and friendly tone, of course. :)

-----------------------------------

So what does everyone think? Is that a reasonable, concise way of getting enough of an idea of a GM's interpretation of illusions to make for a smoother game? Does it need work? Any feedback?

Thanks!

[Finlanderboy]

I was thinking of making one too.

I would get the rashaska bloodline to help confuse people on the spells further.

Spell craft has the potential to wreck your spells as well. So what they need to see to understand knwo the spell is a little iffy.

Also keep in mind a figment illusion is NOT a mind effect so undead can see silent images as well.

[Andrew Christian]

I would have no problem if you came to my table with those questions Jiggy.

[EricMcG]

Illusions are used and abused quite often. I had this one guy insist that the caster make a concentration check whenever Ghost Sound was used as a readied action against casting. Once maybe, but not every round.

You should define "interacting". Most GMs consider it "touching" or "striking", I think using a sense other than the one targeted would be appropriate. Looking (free action) at the Ghost Sound for instance, or feeling the heat (free action if within 10') from a Silent Image wall of fire. Scent invalidates most low level illusions automatically under this definition.

You might want to discuss "abuse" boundaries with the GM. Actions that would stop the game and make him/her look up rules.

Finding a balance between a playable and unplayable character is going to vary widely between GMs regardless of what you do.

[Disturbed1]

I wouldnt write down examples (due more to time involved), but what you have written down sounds reasonable to me.

[BigNorseWolf]

Tone generally isn't something on the giving end. It really only matters on the receiving end.

[Andrew Christian]

interacting is kinda ambiguous in this context.

My rule of thumb, is if the creature is doing something that does involve the illusion, then they aren't interacting with it. If they are doing something that involves the illusion, then they are interacting with it.

This would include looking at what the wall is that just suddenly appeared before them, so they can figure out how to thwart it to kill the caster o the other side.

If they just keep attacking the creature next to them, then they don't care whether the wall is real or not so for all intents and purposes, it is.

[Finlanderboy]

I have used silent image to make walls of stone around bad guys to contain them for a time.

I think ericMcG's ghost sound is silly abuse.

As a Dm I generally require people to work with the illusion to get a save. I argue spellcrafting is not enough and just gives a save. FOr a player I might give a bonus, but for NPC probably not.

[Table Variation]

Have you ever considered that this is all an illusion?

[Paulicus]

In general, a move action or more is required to 'examine' an illusion in-combat to count as interaction. Attacking a figment, if you are concentrating and can 'make it react appropriately' as it says in the spell should prompt a save as well. Trying to smash an illusionary wall would probably be automatic disbelief.

Depending on the people your playing with, you might not even need to tell the GM you're making illusions. Most of the people I regularly play with trust each other, and don't mind being kept in the dark (makes playing the NPCs a little easier, if they don't know). Many GMs might not take kindly to that though.

I highly encourage you to make a gnome so you can take the Effortless Trickery feat (maintain illusion spells as a swift action!) My sin mage uses it to travel around with his 'twin brother,' who he often converses with in typical oddball-gnome fashion. He's saved me a few times, and even taken AoOs when surprised by invisible enemies :P I grabbed two identical minis and marked the fake one on the bottom, just to enhance the illusion. You can do so much more with that feat as well: enhancing BF control spells, multiplying ball lightnings or similar spells, etc...

[BigNorseWolf]

Paulicus wrote:

Depending on the people your playing with, you might not even need to tell the GM you're making illusions. Most of the people I regularly play with trust each other, and don't mind being kept in the dark (makes playing the NPCs a little easier, if they don't know). Many GMs might not take kindly to that though.

Holy cow no, you can't do that to the dm for so many reasons.

You never know what senses an enemy has, if they have truesight up, or even something as simple as a spellcraft check to tell what spell you're casting.

[Finlanderboy]

Table Variation wrote:

Have you ever considered that this is all an illusion?

Perception is reality. If I percieve an illuision it is my reality.

Paulicus wrote:

In general, a move action or more is required to 'examine' an illusion in-combat to count as interaction. Attacking a figment, if you are concentrating and can 'make it react appropriately' as it says in the spell should prompt a save as well. Trying to smash an illusionary wall would probably be automatic disbelief.

I would strongly argue against the smashing part. I woudl argue you need to first hit the allusion 10+size, and then you get a save. Hitting the wall would give you a save. Maybe a cumlative bonuses eahc round as you "know you hit", but to make it automatic is a bit much.

[Jiggy]

Er, guys, the point was not to gather examples of how you all do illusions, but to get feedback on this method of approaching the subject.

[roll4initiative]

This reminds me of

Sewer Dragons:

The illusory White Dragon!

What a pain in the butt that is to GM for various tables. NooBs -fun to run. More experienced players get it right away, though.

(Holy Cow! I did my first spoiler tag ever correctly!)
*big proud smile*

[roll4initiative]

Oh, yeah. Right Jiggy. As a GM, I do like your idea. Simple & keeps the game running.