Concerning Major Image spell


Rules Questions

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As promised:

Illusions are an awesome set of spells. I love 'em! They do require a good deal of creativity to get the most out of them, though. As others have said, an illusionary fireball isn't very useful. Walls, however, are some of the stable illusionist tactics. A wall of fire can encourage enemies to move a certain way, or waste actions. I find that the best walls are ones that look solid, but discourage people from touching/climbing/breaking them. Things like metal cages charged with electricity, or fences topped with poison-dripping spikes, even just duplicating a wall of thorns spell can be effective.

You can make them solid if you want to block sight (for archers or casters, similar to fog spells in that regard). Or fences/cages that you can see through if you want to isolate/control enemies while your own ranged characters can attack them. Or, use them to buy time to retreat/heal/set up a chokepoint/etc. They're very useful spells.

They can also be used to make fogs (less ideal, since being in it would probably be "interacting" and give a save), as well as "doubling up" on a summoning spell, though that use might not last as long unless you summon one to fight, and then use the "illusion" to guard a door or something.

A nice trick with summons, is to "conjure" a "ghost" version of a summon, or just some kind of incorporeal undead. It's a lot easier to make someone believe it's real for a longer time if weapons normally pass through the creature without much resistance. >=D Not to mention, telling the GM to make a will save, then describing the chilling cold as it passes through can be convincing, even if nothing happens... yet. (Cue evil laughter).

Illusions can also mess with your allies, but if you have a way to let them know what's going on, it can be very effective. Think of a wall that your party knows is fake, but the enemies don't, allowing you to pepper them with arrows and spells with relative impunity for a few rounds.

To that end, I would often make a wall or something with a sign hanging on the side my allies could see saying "This is an illusion," giving them that free save with a +4 bonus (normally you don't get a save until you interact with the illusion, such as through combat, or spending at least a move action to study it carefully -- and even then, no +4 bonus). You could also use the spell "Message" to tell them, though it might be overheard, though there are other spells that would allow telepathic communication if you care to use them. Additionally, I've sometimes told players at the start of a session that I mix in illusions with my spells, and let them know if I say a certain phrase when casting (such as, "Spirits aid my magic!" or something) that's a cue that it's an illusion. If they remember a few hours later, they can make a save, if not, then it's their fault for forgetting. :P That kind of segues into my next point: messing with the GM (in a nice way).

On that point, if your group has a lot of trust (like ours) you can sometimes get away with just describing effects and not being explicit about exactly which spell you used. It can help some inexperienced GMs RP the enemies properly if they don't know. But again, you should only try that if you have a lot of trust in your fellow players, since there's a lot of potential for abuse, and if you GM asks what's going on, you tell the truth.

About ruling the mechanics of illusions, WotC posts a nice series of articles on how to run them (and the text hasn't changed in Pathfinder). This is how I run them, and they're the generally accepted rules in my PFS group. Everyone should read them, they give a lot of insight into otherwise murky rules.

(RavingDork already posted them, but I'm relinking them here for more visibility)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Regarding the issue of using Spellcraft to know that an Illusion was cast, I rule it this way: If they successfully ID the spell, that's probably enough to give them a save with a +4 for knowing it's an illusion. But if they still fail the will save, then I tell them they realize that they made a mistake when identifying the spell, and it must actually be a summon monster/wall of stone/whatever spell. That seems the fairest way to balance the interests of the two sides.

After all, there are ways in Pathfinder to fool others into incorrectly IDing your spells as something else.

One other bit of advice I like for illusionists is the feat Effortless Trickery. It's gnome-only, but it's amazing in so many ways. Too many to list here, as I'm sure this post is already huge.

Hope you have fun with illusions! Later.

Sczarni

ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Malak thank you for taking the time to answer my post. And thank you all for taking the time to post your thoughts.

I do have a couple of more illusion questions.

Lets see..If my gnome sorcerer (specializing in illusions) casts invisibility on himself, then the next round casts a summon monster spell, lets say its a lion, does the summon spell break his invisibility and he becomes visible?

How about if he next casts a Major image spell (with the silent spell feat) and causes an illusionary lion to appear....so they are two lions now......Will casting the major image spell break his invisibility spell? How about if he uses an illusion spell to create a "wall" to seal off a doorway or passage way, would that break his invisibility? How about an illusion to "cover" a pit would that break the invisibility spell?

Thank you

Summoning spells do not cause direct damage and you may continue to summon creatures while remaining invisible. The same principle would apply to illusions. I also can't see any of the above cases breaking your invisibility as long as they do not "attack" target directly.


There is a PFS scenario I was Dming. A bad guy uses silent image to fight the pcs. The ninja could not hit the 10 ac to get a save. I rolled fake attack rolls for the skeleton and always said it missed.

A guy summons a celestial dog to attack it. The dog nails it. I tell him to have the dog make a will save and he start fighting me about SR. I said just roll the save. The dog succeeds the save and I said it stops fights and sits there. So the party is totally confused. The summoner asks if he can ask the dog what happened, and I asked if you have speak with animals. Well the witch did(mean while the ninja and wizard fail the 10 ac attack roles too). So he casts speak with animals and so the dog tells him it is fake giving him a save at +4 he makes. Now the rest of party make it except the ninja and he tells the party he is going the other way since this thing is invincible.

Sczarni

I feel also that Carl made his point rather fairly about illusions (no, I am not saying that calling people out is okay). The illusions themselves do not change character's emotions nor do they manipulate people into thinking otherwise, and I am talking about Figments here, not other subschools of it. If they did change and manipulate people, olfactory senses would be included into the spell's description.

If you hit illusionary wall, your hit passes through it. Unfortunately, that's how it is. The text "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." is sufficient to prove that. People do not have their own private mental feelings about it, they all see and sense the same experience.

Adam


Quote:
The text "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." is sufficient to prove that.

Except that text must be wrong, since two people can in fact see totally different things at once in an illusion (one solid, one translucent). OR the translucency part is wrong.

Gotta choose one: Either illusions do affect your mind after all, OR nobody (including the caster) gets to see the translucent illusion until EVERYONE disbelieves it who is looking. I.e. you have to throw out one of the two contradictory clauses.

Sczarni

A boulder hits the illusionary wall (a figment) and passes through it. Everyone sees it and notices the illusion (translucent outline after the hit). How is that objectively wrong? It's shared experience. The people can experience effects individually if it's individual experience. The text doesn't forbid it.


No, because the caster, prior to the boulder hitting it, already sees it as translucent, while everyone else sees it as not translucent.

Not everybody is seeing the same thing, so the quoted text is wrong, it IS in that case providing personalized mental impressions, prior to that event.

Additionally, imagine a new guy walks around a corner after that happens. He didn't see the boulder, hasn't gotten a save. He also now sees differently than everyone else. Does everybody suddenly go back to seeing the solid image, including the caster? Or does new guy randomly get to see translucent somehow without having any evidence at all or interaction? or was the quoted text wrong?


Paulicus wrote:

About ruling the mechanics of illusions, WotC posts a nice series of articles on how to run them (and the text hasn't changed in Pathfinder). This is how I run them, and they're the generally accepted rules in my PFS group. Everyone should read them, they give a lot of insight into otherwise murky rules.

(RavingDork already posted them, but I'm relinking them here for more visibility)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting a 404 page not found error when clicking on those.

I have all of them downloaded (from the download link on the pages when they were available) and have put them in one archive. They are saved as PDF and I have renamed them to reflect the page titles. They can be accessed from OneDrive via the following link

All About Illusions Parts 1-4 (PDF in a .zip)

I shortened the link but if you inspect the element/copy the link to text you can check it starts with 1drv.ms

Sczarni

@Crimeo

So if I understood right, you are claiming that the quoted text (the rules from the CRB) are... wrong?


Malag wrote:

@Crimeo

So if I understood right, you are claiming that the quoted text (the rules from the CRB) are... wrong?

Yes? I'm not sure why you put ellipses after that. These are not the 10 commandments hewn into the living rock or something. One of the passages in CRB is wrong, you would have to choose one to ditch to make them not self contradictory with one another. You can ditch the possibility of any two people not seeing the same translucency OR you can say that it is, in fact, a mind-affecting spell.

And since they're both from the CRB, you can't go by priority of book, printing. They're also both in the general illusion section, so they aren't even different specificities.

Personally, I lean toward saying it affects your mind, because if you choose the other option, you're still left with ambiguity (at any given time, it can be ambiguous whether everyone should be translucent seeing or the opposite. Must all see the same, but you can often have two options without a clear right answer), whereas the mind affecting one is straightforward. But that's just me.

Sczarni

@Crimeo

I have little else to say honestly. We are obviously talking about house rules and not about the Pathfinder then.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So what do you do then? You just impossibly play with contradictory rules? Or does nobody ever cast illusion spells?

When a caster in your game casts an illusory wall and nobody has interacted with it yet, the enemy characters both see through it (because it can't give them a personalized image different from the caster) AND don't see through it (because they haven't saved or seen proof yet) simultaneously at your table?

Does your game split into two alternate dimensions at that point or does the world end or what?

Liberty's Edge

I'm on my phone so this isn't going to be super wonderful. But to start, regardless if you think it makes sense, the rules are plainly stated. Figments, as far as mechanical effect is concerned, don't directly affect the mind.

That's an interesting point though about the transparent wall vs non-transparent.", though I still don't think it has to be contradictory.

If we assume that a figment only affects your senses then:
Caster casts wall
Person A fails and sees a wall
Person B saves and sees the translucent outline.

That doesn't have to mean they are seeing different things, at least not anymore than the spell has to be mind affecting because of it. They are both still seeing the same wall, it's objectively the same to them except one made the save so the magic doesn't affect their senses the same. But it's still the same wall.

There is no personalized mental impression. What got personalized was their senses, not their minds.

Another way to put it is basically the person who saved is seeing the wall for what it is, an illusion. The person who failed has special magical sunglasses on that is altering their visual information to make the wall appear perfectly real.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a series of posts and the replies to them/quoting them. Accusing others of lying only serves to bait other posters/escalate the conversation. "Flouncing" is also a behavior that is unacceptable on our forums.


While I would love to see a response by the devs on this, I found something that may bring some clarity to this troublesome kind of magic.

The spell description of Major Image states: "The image disappears when struck by an opponent unless you cause the illusion to react appropriately."

Directly interacting, even attacking, a wall may not give you a saving throw against the illusion by RAW. Since this spell is based on concentration, it seems like you can actively alter what happens to the illusory wall when it is attacked, but sometimes you can't.

If I shoot an arrow at the wall and see it go through, the image should disappear. If I launch a big rock to blow out a top portion of the wall, I may, by RAW, cause that top part to blow into pieces appropriately, thus allowing the illusion to persist.

Illusions don't rely on a person's senses to persist. I see nowhere in the rules that allows a spell of the figment subschool to make a person who was blind since birth see a stone wall. I can still, however, create the fake stone wall, and the blind person can walk through it with no need to save. Illusions seem to exist in a magicky sort of way that causes people who can sense them to to misinterpret them. Those who successfully make the saving throw see the illusion for what it is: a magicky thing meant to imitate something real. The issue with these spells comes from the difficulty of comprehending a "false sensation", since it seems like you either smell, hear, see, taste, or feel something, or you do not. What is a "false" smell? A "false" touch? Something that feels like or smells like one thing, but is actually another.

Sovereign Court

Escape is made easier with illusions... they are a delaying tactic or something used to hide; not meant for offensive purposes (unless... ;) )


DinosaursOnIce wrote:


If we assume that a figment only affects your senses then:
Caster casts wall
Person A fails and sees a wall
Person B saves and sees the translucent outline.

That doesn't have to mean they are seeing different things

Sorry, but what?? Yes, yes it does have to mean they are seeing different things, when they are seeing different things, and you just listed two things that are not the same thing immediately above this.

Is this a practical joke, guys?

Quote:
They are both still seeing the same wall, it's objectively the same to them

No it is objectively NOT the same perception, one is translucent, one's not... thus not the same...

Quote:
There is no personalized mental impression. What got personalized was their senses, not their minds.

This is irrelevant to the above being contradictory. It is a followup issue, but the contradiction exists without ever having to talk about minds at all, or whether senses are minds. They SEE different things, and it says they "perceive the same thing" Even if you claim perceptions =/= mind, it is still directly contradictory.

Quote:
Another way to put it is basically the person who saved is seeing the wall for what it is, an illusion. The person who failed has special magical sunglasses on that is altering their visual information to make the wall appear perfectly real.

Another way of saying this is "they are not perceiving the same thing."

Shadow Lodge

Crimeo I agreed with you, the whole illusion section of CRB needs a complete rewrite. I FAQ'd one of your earlier posts about the contradiction.


I encourage anyone who is interested in getting clarification for the entire Illusion school of magic to please head to this thread. Every FAQ helps demonstrate to the developers that we would really like to get this issue addressed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Master of Shadows wrote:

Crimeo I agreed with you, the whole illusion section of CRB needs a complete rewrite. I FAQ'd one of your earlier posts about the contradiction.

I think that, that is asking for a bit much.

A FAQ article listing examples of how the developers think illusions should work should suffice I think.

Silver Crusade

Paulicus and Malag thank you both for your posts.

You have given me plenty of good ideas about how to use an illusionist.

Sovereign Court

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Paulicus and Malag thank you both for your posts.

You have given me plenty of good ideas about how to use an illusionist.

I will say - one use of Minor Image or better which isn't controversial.

Make a dozen or so archers to distract the enemy. Just have them continually miss the enemy so that they never interact with them - and if shot have them take the hit etc.

If the enemy runs up to them and takes a swing you'll run into the same table variation as above - but if they've distracted the enemy that much they've already done their job pretty well.


I would definitely rule that you shooting at an illusory archer, and it reacts contingently to your actions ("dodging") that it seems clearly you two interacting with one another. I acted, it acted in response, there were linked actions between us "inter"-"action".

But not objectively clear.

Sovereign Court

Crimeo wrote:

I would definitely rule that you shooting at an illusory archer, and it reacts contingently to your actions ("dodging") that it seems clearly you two interacting with one another. I acted, it acted in response, there were linked actions between us "inter"-"action".

But not objectively clear.

Maybe. What if you just said that your illusionary archers all have a touch AC of 400? ;)


How? They are the size of 12 dust motes? Well then they aren't very distracting anyway. (well also you can't get that small with relevant bonuses but whatever)

If you mean dodge bonus, then they still have to react contingently to my actions to do said dodging.


Crimeo, I think I can help your confusion with the illusion rules.

Two PCs looking at an illusory wall (one having made the save and seeing through it, the other failing and not) are seeing the same thing (the figment) but they are perceiving it in different ways.

As an example, think of those trick images that look like some kind of static until you look at it the right way, or people seeing different shapes in the clouds. Two people can look at the same thing, but perceive it differently. Figments are the magical equivalent of that, seemingly solid (visually) until you figure out the "trick" and realize it was transparent the whole time.

Another example might be trying to see through a window with too much glare until you adjust.

Do any of these help you understand?


I can see how it would seem contradictory.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a series of posts and the replies to them/quoting them. Accusing others of lying only serves to bait other posters/escalate the conversation. "Flouncing" is also a behavior that is unacceptable on our forums.

One of my posts was deleted, but I think you may have misunderstood it. The entire post was meant to be helpful and try to de-escalate.

I can understand erring on the side of caution, though.

Sovereign Court

Paulicus wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a series of posts and the replies to them/quoting them. Accusing others of lying only serves to bait other posters/escalate the conversation. "Flouncing" is also a behavior that is unacceptable on our forums.

One of my posts was deleted, but I think you may have misunderstood it. The entire post was meant to be helpful and try to de-escalate.

I can understand erring on the side of caution, though.

They always seem to take out the entire chain and anything related to it. Likely to keep people from quoting/posting in response to them and dwelling on the angry posts... like we are now. :P


Hmm, I suppose. Though my post was almost entirely an attempt to explain rules =/

Eh.

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Concerning Major Image spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.