So I was running a game for a witch who likes to phantasmal killer everything in sight, and he had the misfortune to cast it on a wizard with spell turning up. At this point, he realized that his greatest fear was his own phantasmal killer, because he couldn't make his own saves. Fortunately, he rolled high on his percentiles, so he lived to baleful polymorph a hound of tindalos the next week. Someone pointed out that since you automatically disbelieve your own illusions, he shouldn't be affected by the spell, but we wondered whether spell turning changed that. Thoughts?
The question to me is whether or not the spell continues to be "yours" when it's turned. I would argue that due to how phantasmal killer works, you would not know that you created the illusory effect.
The important part of spell turning reads as follows:
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected.
RAW that means the exact spell gets bounced back. Now, here's what phantasmal killer says:
You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject's subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell's subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. (emphasis mine)
From this we read that you don't know what the phantasmal killer looks like, so if it gets bounced back at you it takes on the form of your own worst fears.
Now, I cannot find any information on disbelieving your own illusions. The PRD says the following:
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.
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.
Furthermore, the rules for phantasms read:
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.
So given all this, I would say that you can be affected by a turned phantasmal killer, since it's not a figment (which you automatically disbelieve on physical interaction with) you can't know you didn't create it. If you are fully-informed caster (that is you see the shape go out, interact with spell turning knowing spell turning is active, then see it coalesce into a being of your worst fears and coming charging toward you) you might get a +4 bonus on the Will save, but the psychic energies you assailed your opponent with are still coming directly back at you. So go ahead and make that Will save.
Of course, that's just my interpretation of the rules. Others who are more knowledgeable about the various FAQs that have answered illusion questions (of which there are many I'm sure) might be able to better answer the question.
Now, I cannot find any information on disbelieving your own illusions.
I think the key here is where the PRD says that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw". You casting a spell with the intent of creating an illusion and then that illusion coming into being when you complete the spell is pretty convincing proof, isn't it?
Except a phantasm is a mental image. It's in your mind. In this case it'll literally scare you to death.
But how would you know that it's YOUR PK coming back at you? What if the guy cast his own PK at you? You couldn't auto-save against that. What if he cast something else at you (it's really PK but you don't know that it is - maybe to you in your mind it looks like a Disintegrate ray)?
As the caster you might not even know what is hitting you; just that it's scary and awful and messing you up.
|
I would probably allow the casting character a check, probably Spellcraft or Knowledge:Arcana, to recognize the Spell Turning effect and therefore automatically disbelieve. If they failed that, I'd say they failed to recognize their own spell and had to make the remaining saves as described in the spell description.
If the character already knew about the Spell Turning effect for some reason yet decided to cast at the target anyway (e.g. they wanted to be goofy and see whether the effect had enough levels to still be useful, or the player forgot but the character didn't) then in that case I'd probably rule that the character recognized the illusion automatically and no save was necessary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we rule that identifying the Spell Turning effect with Spellcraft allows the original caster to realize that it's just an illusion and hence make no save, wouldn't every target of Phantasmal Killer be allowed to make a Spellcraft roll to realize what it is and also not need to make a save?
I'm of the opinion that the original caster still needs to make the saving throw.
The problem is that with the interaction of Spell Turning and Phantasmal Killer, the caster has no way to know that what he is seeing is illusory. The caster never fully sees the image the he created to inflict upon the subject. He only sees the image of the creature coming after him, which is almost certainly a totally different image than what the original target would have seen. For all the original caster knows, the effect is a Contingency related effect attacking him in response to his Phantasmal Killer spell.Now, I cannot find any information on disbelieving your own illusions.I think the key here is where the PRD says that "a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw". You casting a spell with the intent of creating an illusion and then that illusion coming into being when you complete the spell is pretty convincing proof, isn't it?
Certainly. And once you add Spell Turning, I agree that things get much more muddled (though I would lean toward the caster needing to make a save).
Kaushal said he didn't see anything about automatically disbelieving your own illusions, so I was simply providing a simple interpretation of the rules he quoted that would support Kadin's assertion about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we rule that identifying the Spell Turning effect with Spellcraft allows the original caster to realize that it's just an illusion and hence make no save, wouldn't every target of Phantasmal Killer be allowed to make a Spellcraft roll to realize what it is and also not need to make a save?
I'm of the opinion that the original caster still needs to make the saving throw.
This is a very valid point.
However, I think we DO make that ruling:
GM: The enemy wizard finishes casting and suddenly a large dragon pops out of a portal - it looks at you and roars in anger! You feel the heat of its breath lash out at you as it prepares to attack.
Bob: I roll a spellcraft check. I got a 30. What spell is that?
GM: Major Image.
Bob: So that guy didn't summon a dragon, it's just an illusion?
GM: It appears so.
Bob: Well, then I ignore it.
GM: Nope, you have to make a Will Save.
Bob: Why? I know it's an illusion.
GM: But it looks and sounds and feels real. It might be real.
Bob: It can't be real, it's an ILLUSION!
GM: True, but you still have to make a Will Save to disbelieve the spell, even when you are sure it's an illusion.
Bob: I rolled a 10.
GM: Not good enough. You are convinced that the illusory dragon is real.
Bob: I run away.
GM: From the illusion?
Bob: No, from this table...
Yes, because fear goes away the moment we know that the fear is illogical. That's why I totally don't quake in my figurative boots every time I have to go outside at night to put up the chickens right after watching LPs of Slender 2.
:(
In seriousness, Imbicatus has it. You clearly are not immune to the spell, whether or not you know where it came from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of using Spellcraft or otherwise recognizing the Spell Turning effect seems to be made up, there is no RAW for that, and no RAW way to recognize Spell Turning, even if one can in general be aware of the existence of/possibility of Spell Turning. So there is no real 'proof' the original caster is facing, beyond their previous knowledge/belief/assumptions... In fact there is nothing RAW to distinguish the effect of Spell Turning from a Contingencied P.K. spell, right?
More broadly, the actual effect of P.K. is so broad (depending on each individual's personal fear complex), that I don't think it can completely be rationally comprehended/anticipated, even by the 'original caster' in this case. But really, I don't see how this is any different than when the victim of P.K. or any other Illusion (or some Enchantments etc) are able to pass the Spellcraft check to recognize the spell as it is being cast (which happens before they make the Save). In those cases, there is no special dispensation to allow them to auto-pass the Save, or for the Spellcraft knowledge to materially alter the effect of the spell - Sure, you logically know the result of Spellcraft check (or in this case, that you just cast P.K. yourself but it didn't seem to affect the target), but that doesn't change the effect of the spell on you, however you want to rationalize that (or not) is up to you, the spell will still take full effect.
And you know what? This PC having their own Phantasmal Killer spell Turned back onto themselves kind of sounds like it might be their own worst fear in and of itself :-)
|
|
Paizo has not done much with respect to clarifying all of the potential interactions with illusions. (In part this is because they are busy people and the illusion rules they inherited are insanely complicated.) In Paizo's stead I generally refer to the illusion guidelines put forward in the All About Illusions series from the 3.5 days. In particular:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a
Part 3 of the series has a line that states:
"The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (you know it isn't real because you created it)."
That's the basis for my suggested ruling. The spellcraft check wouldn't be to recognize your own illusion, it would be for recognizing the Spell Turning effect. My thinking was that if you recognize your own illusion, then you know that you created that illusion, therefore you automatically disbelieve. If you strictly follow RAI in this case (if you believe that 3.5 illusion RAI is still Pathfinder RAI, as I do) then the spellcaster might never need to save versus his own Phantasmal Killer.
Since this is an inherited part of 3.5, it's up for debate as to whether the intended interpretation of the rules stays the same when the rules themselves stay the same. I think that's the case but it's an area where you could certainly justify multiple interpretations. I do think that's all they are, though, is interpretations. I don't think RAW you have a strong argument for always needing to save versus your own Spell Turned phantasmal killer.
Agree with KC, although I would not grant the +4 bonus to Save, for this, or for any Illusion you pass Spellcraft for (not sure why those cases should be any different, honestly). The bonus is for another independent character intervening. Your own Saving Throw covers what you are able to do of your own will, i.e. already covers how 'competing thoughts' resolve themselves. Information in your mind is not independent proof the illusion is not real, as the illusion magic expressly is inside your head messing with it.
Again, I dont' see the difference here vs. passing a Spellcraft check to recognize an Illusion spell being cast, and even without Spellcraft the same dynamic exists if you start fighting a known Illusionist, i.e. that you expect to cast illusions at you... no bonus/negation of Illusions' effect. Or to be 100% clear, if you Read Magic on a Scroll, recognize it as P.K., somebody picks it up and casts the Scroll at you, there is still no bonus.
If you need to rationalize that, I'd expect most characters (who passed Spellcraft check) might think "Well, maybe I was wrong" (even though they weren't), or "Well, WHO KNOWS what special defense they have" (which is valid, because even if Spell Turning may be a valid explanation, there may always be unknown factors beyond your awareness).
Ultimately, this is about metagaming, and it's kind of amusing the extent to which players normalize metagaming so much they think they are entitled to it, even when breaking RAW to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we rule that identifying the Spell Turning effect with Spellcraft allows the original caster to realize that it's just an illusion and hence make no save, wouldn't every target of Phantasmal Killer be allowed to make a Spellcraft roll to realize what it is and also not need to make a save?
I'm of the opinion that the original caster still needs to make the saving throw.
Do they not? If you pass the spellcraft check then you know it's an illusion.
a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
So if you know he just cast an illusion spell, then you know whatever effect that appears is an illusion and not real. Thus, you don't need a saving throw to disbelieve. Otherwise you have stupid situations like DM_Blake mentions.
While we are vaguely on the subject. What are everyone's thoughts on the observer effect in regards to rulings for what counts as interacting with illusions?
It should probably be noted that Spellcraft is at least a trained-only skill, so that does limit somewhat the number of characters who get what is essentially an extra very high bonus save against all (witnessed) illusion spells. It's still, I think, a pretty big problem with the spell school overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should probably be noted that Spellcraft is at least a trained-only skill, so that does limit somewhat the number of characters who get what is essentially an extra very high bonus save against all (witnessed) illusion spells. It's still, I think, a pretty big problem with the spell school overall.
I'm glad wizards, at least, will be safe from illusions. I worry about those guys.
There have been times, especially when I was younger, where I've been literally afraid of fear. I would be reluctant to sleep because I was afraid of nightmares, for instance. It's the same fear that wards us away from scary movies, or harmless but huge spiders in our beds and bathtubs. Irrational fear doesn't care if you intellectually know "It's not real, it's not real". It's irrational. That's why a phantasmal killer redirected back at you through telepathy still affects you (and this is RAW, in the spell description, no less, so I don't see how people can seriously dispute it). It's also why identifying the spell does not save you. When you're affected by fear—real fear—the rational mind steps back and lets adrenaline-infused terror take the wheel.
|
|
[...] a phantasmal killer redirected back at you through telepathy still affects you (and this is RAW, in the spell description, no less, so I don't see how people can seriously dispute it). It's also why identifying the spell does not save you. When you're affected by fear—real fear—the rational mind steps back and lets adrenaline-infused terror take the wheel.
RAW is supported for a helm of telepathy (or telepathy in general), but because they mention those two effects specifically, that means other effects must be excluded. That doesn't mean it's not a reasonable house rule to add similar effects to the list, but it's still a house rule. Spell Turning existed as a spell long before they rewrote Phantasmal Killer (they added expanded the clause beyond the helm of telepathy to include any telepathy), so it's not a case where the Spell Turning spell was written after the fact. That means that having Spell Turning trigger the Phantasmal Killer clause in this way is unsupported in RAW and is probably unsupported in RAI, where they seem to have intended telepathic effects to have this effect, not just any spell turning effect. Thus, you fallback to the general ruling of a caster always disbelieving his/her own illusion and thus being immune.
The same thing is true for my original suggestion of allowing a Spellcraft to recognize it, it's a house rule that is unsupported in RAW. I'm okay with disagreeing on which reasonable house rule to apply, I just don't think your interpretation is as clearly in the RAW as you think it is.
Also, this situation is almost always going to be wizard-on-wizard crime (well, any full caster, but you get the idea), so I wouldn't get too worked up about giving one of those two casters an extra toy...
Nah, you don't automatically disbelieve your own phantasmal killer - it's an instantaneous phantasm that assaults your mind within the span of a few seconds.
Being objectively aware you made it doesn't prevent it from trying to cook your brain.
Though, this would be amusing if you have a helm of telepathy, because then you could get this:
1) Cast phantasmal killer on subject with spell turning
2) phantasmal killer bounces back
3) pass will save
4) Phantasmal kill now rebounds again at the guy who had spell turning.
Phantasmal killer's special bounce-back rules are in addition to spell turning, not a replacement to spell turning.
The same thing is true for my original suggestion of allowing a Spellcraft to recognize it, it's a house rule that is unsupported in RAW. I'm okay with disagreeing on which reasonable house rule to apply, I just don't think your interpretation is as clearly in the RAW as you think it is.
Also, this situation is almost always going to be wizard-on-wizard crime (well, any full caster, but you get the idea), so I wouldn't get too worked up about giving one of those two casters an extra toy...
What about RAW doesn't support it?
The Spellcraft rules state:
Identify Spell Being Cast
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.
So if someone casts a spell that I can clearly see, I can automatically make a Spellcraft check to identify it. And clearly if I identify the spell that means I know what it is and what it does. The important part here would be that I identify the spell as an illusion. Per the illusion rules:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
All illusions are fake, that's what makes them illusions.
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.
This means that correctly identifying an illusion spell is proof that the spells effect's are not real. Hence, no saving throw is needed. This is all on the RAW, not the idea that Phantasmal Kill is just so scary that it doesn't matter if you know it's real or not. Which is not RAW since a will save to disbelieve means the spell has no effect on you.
Phantasms, like phantasmal killer, are mind-effecting. Passing that will save is what allows you to go "Phew, it's not real" before it can induce cardiac arrest. The will save is how you're able to disbelieve it in the first place.
The disbelief rules only interact with some illusion spells, not all illusion spells at all times.
(Though if you allow successful spellcraft checks to trump mirror image or invisibility, then okay. =P)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phantasms, like phantasmal killer, are mind-effecting. Passing that will save is what allows you to go "Phew, it's not real" before it can induce cardiac arrest. The will save is how you're able to disbelieve it in the first place.
The disbelief rules only interact with some illusion spells, not all illusion spells at all times.
(Though if you allow successful spellcraft checks to trump mirror image or invisibility, then okay. =P)
Invisibility and Mirror Image don't give you a save to disbelieve, so the mechanical effectiveness of them is not affected in the slightest by the results of this rules contention.
It should probably be noted that Spellcraft is at least a trained-only skill, so that does limit somewhat the number of characters who get what is essentially an extra very high bonus save against all (witnessed) illusion spells. It's still, I think, a pretty big problem with the spell school overall.
I'm glad wizards, at least, will be safe from illusions. I worry about those guys.
There have been times, especially when I was younger, where I've been literally afraid of fear. I would be reluctant to sleep because I was afraid of nightmares, for instance. It's the same fear that wards us away from scary movies, or harmless but huge spiders in our beds and bathtubs. Irrational fear doesn't care if you intellectually know "It's not real, it's not real". It's irrational. That's why a phantasmal killer redirected back at you through telepathy still affects you (and this is RAW, in the spell description, no less, so I don't see how people can seriously dispute it). It's also why identifying the spell does not save you. When you're affected by fear—real fear—the rational mind steps back and lets adrenaline-infused terror take the wheel.
I totally get that line of argument, but the first saving throw is per RAW a "Will disbelief" save and the rules around disbelief saves seem pretty clear.
[...] a phantasmal killer redirected back at you through telepathy still affects you (and this is RAW, in the spell description, no less, so I don't see how people can seriously dispute it). It's also why identifying the spell does not save you. When you're affected by fear—real fear—the rational mind steps back and lets adrenaline-infused terror take the wheel.RAW is supported for a helm of telepathy (or telepathy in general), but because they mention those two effects specifically, that means other effects must be excluded. That doesn't mean it's not a reasonable house rule to add similar effects to the list, but it's still a house rule. Spell Turning existed as a spell long before they rewrote Phantasmal Killer (they added expanded the clause beyond the helm of telepathy to include any telepathy), so it's not a case where the Spell Turning spell was written after the fact. That means that having Spell Turning trigger the Phantasmal Killer clause in this way is unsupported in RAW and is probably unsupported in RAI, where they seem to have intended telepathic effects to have this effect, not just any spell turning effect. Thus, you fallback to the general ruling of a caster always disbelieving his/her own illusion and thus being immune.
Except the house rule is clearly in saying, "A caster is immune to his own phantasmal killer", which is never stated in the rules. In fact, the only place it mentions a caster being exposed to his phantasmal killer, it clearly states he isn't immune. The burden is on you, not me, to explain why spell turning wouldn't work when it normally works for any spell unless stated otherwise.
It should probably be noted that Spellcraft is at least a trained-only skill, so that does limit somewhat the number of characters who get what is essentially an extra very high bonus save against all (witnessed) illusion spells. It's still, I think, a pretty big problem with the spell school overall.
I'm glad wizards, at least, will be safe from illusions. I worry about those guys.
There have been times, especially when I was younger, where I've been literally afraid of fear. I would be reluctant to sleep because I was afraid of nightmares, for instance. It's the same fear that wards us away from scary movies, or harmless but huge spiders in our beds and bathtubs. Irrational fear doesn't care if you intellectually know "It's not real, it's not real". It's irrational. That's why a phantasmal killer redirected back at you through telepathy still affects you (and this is RAW, in the spell description, no less, so I don't see how people can seriously dispute it). It's also why identifying the spell does not save you. When you're affected by fear—real fear—the rational mind steps back and lets adrenaline-infused terror take the wheel.
I totally get that line of argument, but the first saving throw is per RAW a "Will disbelief" save and the rules around disbelief saves seem pretty clear.
If they were, the "rebounds on you" telepathy rule wouldn't make much sense, would it?
Invisibility and Mirror Image don't give you a save to disbelieve, so the mechanical effectiveness of them is not affected in the slightest by the results of this rules contention.Phantasms, like phantasmal killer, are mind-effecting. Passing that will save is what allows you to go "Phew, it's not real" before it can induce cardiac arrest. The will save is how you're able to disbelieve it in the first place.
The disbelief rules only interact with some illusion spells, not all illusion spells at all times.
(Though if you allow successful spellcraft checks to trump mirror image or invisibility, then okay. =P)
Exactly. The Illusion rules state that proof that they are illusions removes the requirement to make a save to disbelief them, not that you are immune to all Illusion spells or effects. So identifying Mirror Image doesn't negate the spell as it does not allow a save. Identifying Silent Image with Spellcraft does and you would see a translucent outline instead of the created effect. Spellcraft to disbelieve still holds up by RAW.
Phantasmal Killer happens FAST. It's direct assault on the primal fears of your mind bypassing logic and knowledge. I rule that you don't get to make the Spellcraft check unless you survive long enough... You have to make the saving throw FIRST before you can steady your mind enough to "calmly" make the spellcraft check.
Again, I dont' see the difference here vs. passing a Spellcraft check to recognize an Illusion spell being cast, and even without Spellcraft the same dynamic exists if you start fighting a known Illusionist, i.e. that you expect to cast illusions at you... no bonus/negation of Illusions' effect. Or to be 100% clear, if you Read Magic on a Scroll, recognize it as P.K., somebody picks it up and casts the Scroll at you, there is still no bonus.
And making a Spellcraft check to identify spells as they are being cast requires no action at all. Meaning it happens faster than FAST. It also happens before the spell goes off. Your ruling is not RAW.
I just want to underline this.
When the spell rebounds on you from a telepathic foe, you know exactly what it is. You auto-identify it, because it's your own spell, and you know how your own spell works.
You get no special protection. Because that's not how phantasmal killer works.
Now, Terminal sees this as an "exception". But the "exception" is in being able to reflect a spell at all without spell turning up. That's why they make a note of it—it's something that obviously wouldn't be possible otherwise. No mention is made of, say, "Any other effect that would normally rebound this spell does not function." Which means we go by the RAW.
The RAW says spell turning reflects the spell on its caster. The RAW says the caster isn't immune to his own spell when it's rebounded by telepathy, and never makes a specific exception for spell turning.
Even putting aside the fact that the "Spellcraft = disbelieve" interpretation is itself highly problematic, it's clearly not applicable here. If it was, the telepathy would have no way of working. You can't get around every rules precedent by citing it as an "exception that proves the rule".
Phantasmal Killer happens FAST. It's direct assault on the primal fears of your mind bypassing logic and knowledge. I rule that you don't get to make the Spellcraft check unless you survive long enough... You have to make the saving throw FIRST before you can steady your mind enough to "calmly" make the spellcraft check.
Okay, so what happens if two Helms of Telepathy and a Spell turning are in play?
Yeah. I'm just going to say with no rules backing at all - I find as successful Spellcraft as 100% proof to be a lacking argument. To me it's just like an art appraiser "This is a piece of work in the style of Vincent Van Gogh" as compared to a failed check "I have no idea, this is art maybe? Could just be splatter on canvas".. I mean no disrespect to Van Gogh there it was merely the 1st name to come to mind.
Then I'd be even more concerned about deception. Even experts can be fooled by clever forgeries, I'm certain there must be some methods out there that make a spell seem to be of another school, magic items to radiate a different aura etc.
Anyway, the subject identifies it as an illusion - Unless the subject is the most egotistical person ever surely they must have some doubt but good grounds to attempt to disbelieve but not automatic in my mind.
|
Okay, so what happens if two Helms of Telepathy and a Spell turning are in play?
Phantasmal Killer happens FAST. It's direct assault on the primal fears of your mind bypassing logic and knowledge. I rule that you don't get to make the Spellcraft check unless you survive long enough... You have to make the saving throw FIRST before you can steady your mind enough to "calmly" make the spellcraft check.
It's like a Link - Phantom light fight.
|
|
Except the house rule is clearly in saying, "A caster is immune to his own phantasmal killer", which is never stated in the rules. In fact, the only place it mentions a caster being exposed to his phantasmal killer, it clearly states he isn't immune. The burden is on you, not me, to explain why spell turning wouldn't work when it normally works for any spell unless stated otherwise.
I think you've lost me here. The RAW is that a caster auto-disbelieves his own illusions. Skip Williams, co-designer of the 3.0 and 3.5 ruleset, says so, in what is the WotC equivalent of a Paizo FAQ. That is effectively RAW. You are attempting to contradict that by saying it's not true and as evidence you provide a misinterpretation of the Pathfinder rules and a lot of opinion. I don't disagree with your opinion and have provided opinion myself, but you're not making a coherent rules argument for why your argument is RAW.
Your example of the helm of telepathy clause generalizes a very limited exception to the general illusion rules into a much broader rule. Don't do that! That's not how Pathfinder rules should be interpreted. When you explicitly state a triggering condition, requirement, etc. you exclude all other possibilities. If a magic item lists Mage Armor and Time Stop as requirements, that means no other spells are requirements (unless explicitly stated in other rules, like the magic crafting section, which is not the case in this ruleset). If you state that your readied action is triggered when the BBEG casts a spell, that condition excludes other triggering conditions--like if the henchman casts a spell.
Do you believe that RAW, Rapid Reload applies to repeating crossbows? Do you believe that RAW, Ammo Drop and Juggle Load worked in all slings prior to the FAQ? Because in these two examples they don't work RAW because the feats specifically laid out the conditions under which they may be applied and some very reasonable things got excluded--for the same reason Spell Turning doesn't, RAW, override the rules for Phantasmal Killer.
Phantasmal Killer does not say that the caster is vulnerable. Instead, it mentions a very specific triggering condition. By not mentioning other triggering conditions, like Spell Turning, it explicitly excludes those conditions from having the same effect. If you think that list of things should include Spell Turning, fine! Pathfinder is great for houseruling and I think this is a good example of it. But it isn't RAW, and I'm not sure why you're so convinced that it is.
I'm also not sure why people are concerned with the speed of spell manifestation with respect to RAW. It seems pretty tangential to everything at this point.
The 3.0/3.5 stuff isn't really super relevant when trying to determine Pathfinder RAW.
It's enough to note that the telepathy clause in Phantasmal Killer being a weird, specific exception that overrides the general disbelief rules doesn't change anything else about how P.K. interacts with them.
In practice at my table I think I'd roll spell turning into that clause as well, but I don't think that's what the current rules say.
That whole helm of telepathy clause is a weird carryover all the way from OD&D (spell first shows up in Dragon Magazine #1), which is probably why it interacts so inconsistently with the more formalized 3e+ spell school rules. At least they didn't keep the 'roll 3d6 under your Intelligence' to disbelieve thing...