| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh wow, i just got an image of santa claus literally being Charon's little helper, it was strange.
TIL Charon runs a pyramid scheme on elves and his second in command lives at the north pole
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add another wrinkle, is it possible to Bluff check yourself? Or do you get like +50 on your sense motive against yourself? Do you have to be a monk who truly "knows themselves" in order to get a sense motive against your own bluff check(again, if its possible to bluff check yourself)?
Dude, if my character ever sees your character he is running the other way. You're gonna be walking down the street arguing with yourself, picking your own pockets, feinting yourself, making acrobatics checks to move through squares you threaten to avoid AoOs from yourself.
Someone needs to lock him up for his own safety!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add another wrinkle, is it possible to Bluff check yourself?
Not only is it possible, it is necessary. "Human kind cannot bear very much reality."
To add another wrinkle, is it possible to Bluff check yourself? Or do you get like +50 on your sense motive against yourself? Do you have to be a monk who truly "knows themselves" in order to get a sense motive against your own bluff check(again, if its possible to bluff check yourself)?Dude, if my character ever sees your character he is running the other way. You're gonna be walking down the street arguing with yourself, picking your own pockets, feinting yourself, making acrobatics checks to move through squares you threaten to avoid AoOs from yourself.
Someone needs to lock him up for his own safety!
haha, i did say that a couple of my characters are clinically insane right? but none of them have very good bluff scores, so i think they would always win that argument (lose that argument?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And an illusionist would never be able to choose to disbelieve spell effects that he created and knows they are illusions. Ever.
But if he doesn't know...
The rest of your post shouldn't have bearing in a fantasy setting, by the way, where weirder things can and have happened. Are you saying someone cursed into failing their will saves against illusions still can't fail the saving throw? That someone who has a huge amount of the mental training needed to cast and create illusions can't relax their image of reality a little?
I simply don't agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Round 1, Cast false alibi. The trigger being, "whenever I see a shadowy wall appear, the memory of me casting it is replaced with an enemy casting it instead.
Round 2 Create Illusioniary shadow wall.
Survive being turned to stone by medusa.
That's not actually necessary. You already can't see through Illusory Wall unless you both cast the spell and want to.
Unless by shadow wall you mean using Shadow Conjuration/Evocation for any wall spell of course.
And an illusionist would never be able to choose to disbelieve spell effects that he created and knows they are illusions. Ever.
But if he doesn't know...
The rest of your post shouldn't have bearing in a fantasy setting, by the way, where weirder things can and have happened. Are you saying someone cursed into failing their will saves against illusions still can't fail the saving throw? That someone who has a huge amount of the mental training needed to cast and create illusions can't relax their image of reality a little?
I simply don't agree.
When you skim threads and read only some posts, you might miss the fact that I've already excluded illusionists who have been magically caused to believe their illusions. The "because magic" excuse applies here, but only WHEN some magic is applied to the illusionist to force him to believe his illusions.
You're argument is essentially meaningless. It's like we're having an argument about whether common humans can swim in lava. I'm saying they can't. Then you come along and say magic will make it possible. Of course magic makes ANYTHING possible in this game.
But that's not what this thread is about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wall of unformatted text about suspension of disbelief
Suspension of disbelief is for entertainment.
I can go watch a Harry Potter movie and suspend my disbelief to enjoy the movie. For those two hours, there is a Hogwarts, there are wizards and witches living amongst us, and quidditch is pretty cool. Then the movie ends and I go home and those things are fully disbelieved.
Even during the movie, if someone asks me "Hey, do you think there really are wand-waving-wizards living secretly amongst us?" I would reply "No, this movie is just make-believe."
The same thing applies to the fans who go watch Criss Angel or David Copperfield. Not a single one of them believes that guy up on stage can saw a woman in half and she's still there smiling and waving and wiggling her toes, then he can show her severed body, and then he can slide her together and she's back in one piece. Not a single person in the audience believes that really happened.
Suspension of disbelief is the difference between the one audience member saying "Wow, that's an awesome trick!" and the other guy next to him saying "No way, that's fake!" The first guy is suspending his disbelief to enjoy the performance and the second guy is refusing to suspend disbelief and therefore not enjoying the show.
The fact is, BOTH of them know that woman was never actually bisected. Both of them know it's not real. One of them chooses to suspend his disbelief to enjoy the show. That's all.
In the context of this thread, you're proposing that Criss Angel or David Copperfield or any other stage magician is capable of suspending HIS disbelief. I submit that there is no way, ever, at all, remotely possible that the magician on stage BELIEVES that he really sawed the woman in half. EVER. EEEVVVEEERRR.
The day David Copperfield goes up on stage and ACTUALLY saws a woman in half, that's the day he's headed for an insane asylum (assuming he gets a good lawyer). And the day that he starts thinking he really is sawing them in half (when he is not) is the day they'll start fitting him for his little white coat with long sleeves and lots of buckles.
(which won't do them any good because he can get out of strait jackets)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to point out, in light-hearted human, it's possible to swim in lava. How long you're swimming is another matter entirely. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ridiculon
The RAW of your question can basically be read in two ways.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw
If you're arguing that an illusionist CANNOT disbelieve her own illusions, then the argument is that since no saving throw is needed, you automatically see through it.
If you're arguing that an illusionist CAN disbelieve her own illusions, then the argument is that the rules tell you, you don't need to make a save, but not that you don't get a save. This means you can elect to take your save and then choose to fail it.
None of these readings are wrong, by RAW, so it becomes a matter of preference and what you want illusions to do.
Personally, when making these decisions, I like to ask myself what either decision will ADD to the game, and what they will DETRACT from the game.
Now, at my table, Illusionists can choose to whether to disbelieve their own illusions or not. I like the idea of a vagrant wizard who has made her stinking alleyway look like a nice, warm study, even as she wastes away in squalor. I like the idea of the aging sorceress, who is deluding herself into thinking she's young by hiding her looks from herself, behind a veil of illusions.
Hope it helps
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, at my table, Illusionists can choose to whether to disbelieve their own illusions or not. I like the idea of a vagrant wizard who has made her stinking alleyway look like a nice, warm study, even as she wastes away in squalor. I like the idea of the aging sorceress, who is deluding herself into thinking she's young by hiding her looks from herself, behind a veil of illusions.
Just repeat over and over, "I do believe in fairies!"
@Ridiculon
The RAW of your question can basically be read in two ways.
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throwIf you're arguing that an illusionist CANNOT disbelieve her own illusions, then the argument is that since no saving throw is needed, you automatically see through it.
If you're arguing that an illusionist CAN disbelieve her own illusions, then the argument is that the rules tell you, you don't need to make a save, but not that you don't get a save. This means you can elect to take your save and then choose to fail it.
None of these readings are wrong, by RAW, so it becomes a matter of preference and what you want illusions to do.
Personally, when making these decisions, I like to ask myself what either decision will ADD to the game, and what they will DETRACT from the game.
Now, at my table, Illusionists can choose to whether to disbelieve their own illusions or not. I like the idea of a vagrant wizard who has made her stinking alleyway look like a nice, warm study, even as she wastes away in squalor. I like the idea of the aging sorceress, who is deluding herself into thinking she's young by hiding her looks from herself, behind a veil of illusions.
** spoiler omitted **...
This, to me, brings up the question of what kind of world Golarion is. Where does Golarion sit on the sliding scale of delusion and illusion? is it canon that in a world of magical illusions the only one who knows the truth is the source of the obfuscation? or is it canon that in a world of magical illusions the magic is so efficacious that the caster can fool themselves if they try hard enough?
This started out as a simple mechanics question, but now i'm asking people who are more familiar with Golarion than i am to comment (preferably with references to the books) on how illusionists are presented in the world.
This, to me, brings up the question of what kind of world Golarion is. Where does Golarion sit on the sliding scale of delusion and illusion? is it canon that in a world of magical illusions the only one who knows the truth is the source of the obfuscation? or is it canon that in a world of magical illusions the magic is so efficacious that the caster can fool themselves if they try hard enough?
I don't think this is a question about Golarion, but a question about what it means to "fool themselves if they try hard enough."
I don't think there's much doubt that magic can affect someone's mind. If you really want to lose weight, you can cast a geas on yourself to force yourself to stop eating junk food. But those spells are generally charm/compulsion spells and have the [mind-affecting] tag. They're not illusion spells.
If I put a snowball on a plate in front of you and tell you it's a chicken leg, you can't fool yourself by "try[ing] hard enough." That's not something that effort alone can overcome. And it's not something that can be overcome merely by your somehow making the snowball look like a chicken leg, because you still know that it's a snowball that you made look like a chicken leg.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ridiculon:
Not extremely confident in my Golarion-fu, but I do know that it is possible, in Golarion, to be afflicted by madness that prevents you from being able to distinguish your own illusions from reality. Although this doesn't answer whether you can elect to not see through your own illusions, it does tell us that if afflicted with the right dementia, you may not have a choice.
EDIT: Vraxeris also had simulacra of Delvahine, a succubus he fancied, in his bedroom. Again, this doesn't explicitly prove or disprove anything, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat that I prefer to think that the illusionist has the choice whether to disbelieve the illusion or not. If not, then Vraxeris enjoyed the "pleasures" of 6 elaborately crafted snowmen, draped in a translucent outline. An amusing mental image, sure, but also somewhat pathetic in comparison to the alternative.
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think a case could be made for being able to fail your own disbelieve check.Let's try it. A thought experiment. We'll stick with something simple.
In real life, I want you to believe that you're Santa Claus. Really, truly, deeply, believe it.
There are tangible benefits:
You only have to work one day each year.
The other 364 days you have an army of elves to do everything for you
You send the boy elves to your toy factory and hang out with thousands of lonely elf chicks all day long
You're magic!
Everybody loves you.Plenty of benefits.
So go for it. I challenge you to fail your own disbelief check and truly believe that you're Santa Claus.
I know you can't.
Not only is this an exaggerated extreme (which typically means its automatically absurd and not relevant to any conversation), its fundamentally wrong as well.
You can believe you're Santa with all your heart and it won't make it true because Santa isn't real (sorry kids, spoilers!). Just believing that you are Santa won't give you magical powers.
This is more like an optical illusion like the Black-Blue/Gold-White dress. Just because you logically know its black and blue because of all the actual evidence (including pictures of the same dress in better light), you can still see it as white and gold. Just because your mind knows what it is seeing is false, the doesn't mean you automatically see it as it really is. And even when you can see it correctly, you can still work yourself up to see it as being white and gold again.
Or the Placebo effect. If you believe something is medicine, it can actually make you feel better. But there are studies that have shown that it can still have that same effect even after you tell them its a placebo if they still believe in it. They know it isn't real, but they choose to believe in it and still gain a measurable effect from a sugar pill that shouldn't have been able to do anything.
Not only is this an exaggerated extreme (which typically means its automatically absurd and not relevant to any conversation), its fundamentally wrong as well.
Arguments to absurdity are NOT automatically irrelevant.
You can believe you're Santa with all your heart and it won't make it true because Santa isn't real (sorry kids, spoilers!). Just believing that you are Santa won't give you magical powers.The illusions you create aren't real either. Furthermore, your character doesn't just believe they aren't real he/she KNOWS they aren't.
This is more like an optical illusion like the Black-Blue/Gold-White dress. Just because you logically know its black and blue because of all the actual evidence (including pictures of the same dress in better light), you can still see it as white and gold. Just because your mind knows what it is seeing is false, the doesn't mean you automatically see it as it really is. And even when you can see it correctly, you can still work yourself up to see it as being white and gold again.
Even if you can see the optical illusion you still KNOW the dress is black and blue. Likewise, you may be able to see your illusory wall but you KNOW it isn't real.
Or the Placebo effect. If you believe something is medicine, it can actually make you feel better. But there are studies that have shown that it can still have that same effect even after you tell them its a placebo if they still believe in it. They know it isn't real, but they choose to believe in it and still gain a measurable effect from a sugar pill that shouldn't have been able to do anything.
However, if you KNOW the pill is just a sugar pill then it will not have the placebo effect. That is why patients aren't told whether they are getting placebo or not because if they KNOW it changes the result. Likewise, the illusionist KNOWS his illusion isn't real.
This isn't really a matter of whether the illusionist can believe his own illusion. It is a matter of the illusionist KNOWING, not just believing, it isn't real and nothing short of insanity or other magic can make him not know it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Yes, they are. At no point does taking anything to an absurd extreme prove or disprove anything.
2) Believing you are Santa won't give you magical powers to be Santa. Believing an illusionary wall to be real so that you can't see through it, and thus breaking a gaze attack is very real.
3) Just because you know the dress is black and blue doesn't mean you suddenly stop seeing it as white and gold, or that you can never see it that way again. Logically knowing something and what you experience are two totally different things.
4) Did you not read what I wrote about people still benefiting from the placebo effect even when they know its a placebo?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/07July/Pages/The-placebo-effect-can-still-work- even-if-people-know-its-a-placebo.aspx
They flat out told the test subjects that they were getting a placebo and it still worked. Logically they knew it was nothing, but they still got a measurable benefit from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or how about pareidolia?
Just because you know that the stain on the wall or the grain in a piece of wood is a random pattern, it doesn't stop you from seeing a face or the Virgin Mary in your taco.
Or people falling in love with a fictional character? Everyone knows they aren't real, even the person involved, but it doesn't change the fact that their feelings are real. Hell, there's an entire branch of internet art out there that revolves around taking things you know aren't real and believing in them enough to get a real physical reaction from them. Its called Rule 34.
1) Yes, they are. At no point does taking anything to an absurd extreme prove or disprove anything.
Reductio ad absurdum arguments are a perfectly valid form of argumentation.
2) Believing you are Santa won't give you magical powers to be Santa. Believing an illusionary wall to be real so that you can't see through it, and thus breaking a gaze attack is very real.
Lets reframe this since you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the wall is no more real than Santa and so should not block your sight.
Instead we will use the example of faith healers. Some people believe so strongly that they are healed by these fraudsters that they experience some relief from chronic pain. Does that mean that an atheist who knows it isn't real can decide for the sake of getting rid of a headache to believe for a while?
3) Just because you know the dress is black and blue doesn't mean you suddenly stop seeing it as white and gold, or that you can never see it that way again. Logically knowing something and what you experience are two totally different things.
You can perceive the illusion but you will never again believe it to be true. Likewise, the illusionist would be able to perceive the wall but would not be able to believe it was a real wall.
4) Did you not read what I wrote about people still benefiting from the placebo effect even when they know its a placebo?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/07July/Pages/The-placebo-effect-can-still-work- even-if-people-know-its-a-placebo.aspx
They flat out told the test subjects that they were getting a placebo and it still worked. Logically they knew it was nothing, but they still got a measurable benefit from it.
The article you reference shows that if patients are given a placebo and experience benefits and then are later shown that they are being given a placebo the benefits continue to occur because of conditioning. This is a far cry from telling them that they are going to be given a placebo up front and them experiencing the benefits which is more analogous to the illusionist knowing when he casts the spell that the result isn't real.
It is completely ridiculous to think that a character could decide, "Ya know want I don't want to be affected by the medusa's gaze so I am going to cast a wall that is totally not real but I will just believe that it is real to protect myself."
The point is that they knew it was a placebo. They were flat out told "This is a placebo, it has nothing in it, it does nothing" and because they believed it worked before, they continued to believe that it worked even when they logically knew it shouldn't.
So yes, even if you know the faith healer is a fraud, an atheist can still get tangible results from seeing one due to the placebo effect, even when they know going in it doesn't work.
You can know something isn't real, and still be affected by it in the real world. Why would it be any different in a game?
The point is that they knew it was a placebo. They were flat out told "This is a placebo, it has nothing in it, it does nothing" and because they believed it worked before, they continued to believe that it worked even when they logically knew it shouldn't.
So yes, even if you know the faith healer is a fraud, an atheist can still get tangible results from seeing one due to the placebo effect, even when they know going in it doesn't work.
You can know something isn't real, and still be affected by it in the real world. Why would it be any different in a game?
The placebo continued to work not because they still were able to believe in it but because when they initially took it, while believing, it produced effect and their bodies became conditioned to produce that same effect when it was presented even when they no longer believed. The placebo effect was then caused by a physiological reaction not a psychological one.
So no, an atheist whose body isn't conditioned in that way is not going to experience an affect from a faith healer even if he/she attempts to believe knowing it isn't real.
And the illusionist is not going to be affected by his own illusions which he knows not to be real.
I've always found questions of "belief" vs. "choice" to be very interesting. I get embroiled in this very discussion all the time in theological debates.
Some people seem to think that a person can choose what he believes, like there is some mental switch: "I'll just flip this little brain switch over here to the 'on' position and start believing in something I currently don't believe".
Belief doesn't work that way.
It never has.
The only one things I've found that holds true in all those debates, and there's evidence of it here too: when a person is of the opinion that belief is an on/off mind switch under the total control of the potential believer, it's just about impossible to teach that person that belief doesn't work that way.
I don't know why.
In debates and other discussions, I can often get people to change their minds when I provide enough evidence and logic. Sometimes people get me to change my mind. But one area that never seems to happen is the area of the magical belief switch.
It doesn't exist, but people who think it does seem to never change their minds on that particular misunderstanding.
I think I may have to walk this up to some professional psychiatrists and find out their knowledgeable opinion on the subject.
Meanwhile, I've said my piece. Some of you get it; you probably got it before I said anything. Some of you don't get it, and if my anecdotal experience is any compass here, you never will, so I won't belabor the point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, the original tactic that spawned this debate is still valid, since an illusion can still block LoS even if you disbelieve it
Figments & phantasms become translucent once you disbelieve them - so they don't block LoS.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if knowledge of the spell cast being an illusion spell is sufficient for automatic disbelief, is anyone with a high enough spellcraft to successfully identify a spell being cast basically immune to illusions that are cast in their presence?
** spoiler omitted **
So, if knowledge of the spell cast being an illusion spell is sufficient for automatic disbelief, is anyone with a high enough spellcraft to successfully identify a spell being cast basically immune to illusions that are cast in their presence?
No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.
No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.** spoiler omitted **
So, if knowledge of the spell cast being an illusion spell is sufficient for automatic disbelief, is anyone with a high enough spellcraft to successfully identify a spell being cast basically immune to illusions that are cast in their presence?
That seems really weird, considering they can identify the spell being cast, and such timing would be coincidental to the point of doofiness. After all,
a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
... either means something, or it's effectively worthless, as that justification could apply to almost anything.
"Well, I see a wall, and I threw a rock through the wall, but maybe there's someone using invisible teleportation effects or something that make the rock disappear instead of being an illusion." is roughly as valid as, "That guy cast a spell that explicitly allows him to make illusory creatures, and, voila, at the same time there is an illusory creature; could easily just be a coincidence."
Both rely on the idea that, "There may be factors I can't sense that make data appear different than it is." which, you know, is fine, but at that point, the guy making the save might as well start wondering if he's really a dude running around on an adventure, or he's merely a brain in a jar being told he's running around in an adventure on an advanced magical simulation situation. Either way, "It could be."
That said, no matter who you're talking to, arcane sight does make you effectively immune to illusion (well, anything other than shadow spells), considering it automatically allows you to see the auras, and conveniently identifies and labels them for you, which is exactly what you need to disbelieve a given illusion.
Illusion is an awesome spell-school, but it has a lot of weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The old Shadow Conjuration/evocation guides had some good flavoring for disbelieving your own illusions, though that's more about how to fluff it after deciding if it's mechanically possible.
Couldn't find the link with a quick search, hopefully it's still out there. =s
No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.** spoiler omitted **
So, if knowledge of the spell cast being an illusion spell is sufficient for automatic disbelief, is anyone with a high enough spellcraft to successfully identify a spell being cast basically immune to illusions that are cast in their presence?
That seems really weird, considering they can identify the spell being cast, and such timing would be coincidental to the point of doofiness. After all,
a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.... either means something, or it's effectively worthless, as that justification could apply to almost anything.
"Well, I see a wall, and I threw a rock through the wall, but maybe there's someone using invisible teleportation effects or something that make the rock disappear instead of being an illusion." is roughly as valid as, "That guy cast a spell that explicitly allows him to make illusory creatures, and, voila, at the same time there is an illusory creature; could easily just be a coincidence."
Both rely on the idea that, "There may be factors I can't sense that make data appear different than it is." which, you know, is fine, but at that point, the guy making the save might as well start wondering if he's really a dude running around on an adventure, or he's merely a brain in a jar being told he's running...
I directly addressed that argument and yet you just completely ignored it. A successful spellcraft check will tell you "He just cast the spell Major Image". It will not tell you "He just cast the spell Major Image to make it look like an Owlbear just jumped out from behind that large boulder" or "He just cast the spell Major Image and made it look like the wall of that burning building I was chasing him through fell down between us." All you know is he cast Major Image and made an illusion of some kind and then an event, which could be but isn't necessarily an illusion happened. That isn't PROOF that the illusion isn't real.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
According to these rules a spellcraft check ("studying it carefully") will let you make a save vs the illusion.
As a side note anyone who ascribes to Bayesian thinking will never be able to totally disbelieve an illusion since it will be impossible for them to have 100% probability of anything
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.** spoiler omitted **
So, if knowledge of the spell cast being an illusion spell is sufficient for automatic disbelief, is anyone with a high enough spellcraft to successfully identify a spell being cast basically immune to illusions that are cast in their presence?
That seems really weird, considering they can identify the spell being cast, and such timing would be coincidental to the point of doofiness. After all,
a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.... either means something, or it's effectively worthless, as that justification could apply to almost anything.
"Well, I see a wall, and I threw a rock through the wall, but maybe there's someone using invisible teleportation effects or something that make the rock disappear instead of being an illusion." is roughly as valid as, "That guy cast a spell that explicitly allows him to make illusory creatures, and, voila, at the same time there is an illusory creature; could easily just be a coincidence."
Both rely on the idea that, "There may be factors I can't sense that make data appear different than it is." which, you know, is fine, but at that point, the guy making the save might as well start wondering if he's really a dude running around on an adventure, or he's merely a brain in a jar
If identifying a spell DID count as proof - it'd be easy to mess with an extra layer of illusion. Make an illusion of yourself casting an illusion while you yourself are invisible and cast a real dangerous spell.
"Don't worry - that pit is just an illus...aaahhhhhhhhh..."
"Don't worry - that stone wall is just... ow!"
"That wall of flame isn't real at all - this burning flesh of my face is just an illusion!".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Harry begins casting Major Image. Larry successfully uses Spellcraft to identify the spell.
Larry: He just finished casting Major Image!
Mary: OK, look around, let's see what illusion he cooked up.
Larry: Nothing's changed. It all looks the same.
Mary: Wait. I see it. An owlbear just charged out from behind that boulder.
Larry: Oh, yeah, I see it now. I guess that's his illusion then.
Mary: Well, wait. It could be a coincidence. Maybe that owlbear was there all along, napping, and it just woke up hungry.
Larry: Well, OK, maybe... But don't you think that's a huge coincidence?
Mary: Nope. This kind of thing happens all the time. Our GM is vicious...
Larry: OK, granted. But that means there should be ANOTHER illusion somewhere. If Harry didn't create an illusion of that owlbear, then what the heck did he create???
Mary: I don't see anything else. Nothing's changed.
Larry: Me either. Must be the owlbear.
Mary: OK, OK, I guess it's the owlbear.
Larry: I disbelieve and I don't need a saving throw.
GM: The ownbear runs up and attacks. Larry, are you sure you just want to stand there and let it rip out your throat?
Larry: No problem. It's an illusion.
GM: OK, the very real owlbear who was sleeping behind that rock attacks Larry and kills him with a coup de grace.
Larry: What? It's an illusion!
GM: Nope. Harry knew the owlbear was waking up, so he cast greater image to create the illusion of a grain of sand by his foot, knowing you'd think it was the owlbear and get mauled!!! Bwu ha ha ha ha!
Mary: I told you so! Vicious.
Larry: OK, gimme the 3d6...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or an alternative version - you decide...
Harry begins casting Major Image. Larry successfully uses Spellcraft to identify the spell.
Larry: He just finished casting Major Image!
Mary: OK, look around, let's see what illusion he cooked up.
Larry: Nothing's changed. It all looks the same.
Mary: Wait. I see it. An owlbear just charged out from behind that boulder.
Larry: Oh, yeah, I see it now. I guess that's his illusion then.
Mary: Well, wait. It could be a coincidence. Maybe that owlbear was there all along, napping, and it just woke up hungry.
Larry: Well, OK, maybe... But don't you think that's a huge coincidence?
Mary: Nope. This kind of thing happens all the time. Our GM is vicious...
Larry: OK, granted. But that means there should be ANOTHER illusion somewhere. If Harry didn't create an illusion of that owlbear, then what the heck did he create???
Mary: I don't see anything else. Nothing's changed.
Larry: Me either. Must be the owlbear.
Mary: OK, OK, I guess it's the owlbear.
Larry: I disbelieve and I don't need a saving throw.
GM: OK, now the owlbear is just a translucent outline of a charging owlbear.
Larry: I knew it! Mary, it is an illusion.
Mary: I disbelieve it too. Is it an outline for me?
GM: Yep.
Mary: I take back that "vicious" comment.
Harry: Dangit! Why do I always forget to hide before I cast my illusion spells???
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Harry begins casting Major Image. Larry successfully uses Spellcraft to identify the spell.
Larry: He just finished casting Major Image!
Mary: OK, look around, let's see what illusion he cooked up.
Larry: Nothing's changed. It all looks the same.
Mary: Wait. I see it. An owlbear just charged out from behind that boulder.
Larry: Oh, yeah, I see it now. I guess that's his illusion then.
Mary: Well, wait. It could be a coincidence. Maybe that owlbear was there all along, napping, and it just woke up hungry.
Larry: Well, OK, maybe... But don't you think that's a huge coincidence?
Mary: Nope. This kind of thing happens all the time. Our GM is vicious...
Larry: OK, granted. But that means there should be ANOTHER illusion somewhere. If Harry didn't create an illusion of that owlbear, then what the heck did he create???
Mary: I don't see anything else. Nothing's changed.
Larry: Me either. Must be the owlbear.
Mary: OK, OK, I guess it's the owlbear.
Larry: I disbelieve and I don't need a saving throw.
GM: The ownbear runs up and attacks. Larry, are you sure you just want to stand there and let it rip out your throat?
Larry: No problem. It's an illusion.
GM: OK, the very real owlbear who was sleeping behind that rock attacks Larry and kills him with a coup de grace.
Larry: What? It's an illusion!
GM: Nope. Harry knew the owlbear was waking up, so he cast greater image to create the illusion of a grain of sand by his foot, knowing you'd think it was the owlbear and get mauled!!! Bwu ha ha ha ha!
Mary: I told you so! Vicious.
Larry: OK, gimme the 3d6...
That is completely absurd....it takes a full round action to coup de grace and the owlbear moved! LoL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, maybe if you made an illusion of an unchanged battlefield in a dome shape over the party and the owlbear had a few rounds to get close enough to shift in and coup de grace
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, of course that owlbear ran up to Larry and did the coup de grace on the next round - Larry was not defending himself, and their dialog was spread out over a few rounds; I just didn't specify the passage of rounds in the dialog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, of course that owlbear ran up to Larry and did the coup de grace on the next round - Larry was not defending himself, and their dialog was spread out over a few rounds; I just didn't specify the passage of rounds in the dialog.
Ok, we'll let it slide this time. But we have our eyes on you!
I directly addressed that argument and yet you just completely ignored it.
No. No I did not.
What you said,
No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.
... and I responded, addressing that very idea, with,
"Well, I see a wall, and I threw a rock through the wall, but maybe there's someone using invisible teleportation effects or something that make the rock disappear instead of being an illusion." is roughly as valid as, "That guy cast a spell that explicitly allows him to make illusory creatures, and, voila, at the same time there is an illusory creature; could easily just be a coincidence."
Both rely on the idea that, "There may be factors I can't sense that make data appear different than it is." which, you know, is fine, but at that point, the guy making the save might as well start wondering if he's really a dude running around on an adventure, or he's merely a brain in a jar being told he's running around in an adventure on an advanced magical simulation situation. Either way, "It could be."
This implies (and was meant to) that there is no such thing as "proof" - either something obvious occurs, and it's illusory or it's not. If someone casts an illusion, and it's obvious, it makes sense that it's obvious, otherwise, it's a worthless illusion.
A successful spellcraft check will tell you "He just cast the spell Major Image". It will not tell you "He just cast the spell Major Image to make it look like an Owlbear just jumped out from behind that large boulder" or "He just cast the spell Major Image and made it look like the wall of that burning building I was chasing him through fell down between us." All you know is he cast Major Image and made an illusion of some kind and then an event, which could be but isn't necessarily an illusion happened. That isn't PROOF that the illusion isn't real.
Than nothing is proof of anything. Science is clearly a lie, and I can't trust anything with my senses anymore - in fact, there are probably a host of fairies with psychic powers that are altering my non-brain (because those don't exist, you know) so that I perceive things in a wacky fun-house land of coincidence and false timing. After all, if you want me to believe this is not all just either coincidence or layers of falsehood, you have to prove it.
... or people can actually actively, you know, rely on their normal sense of perception and cause-and-effect.
"That enemy just cast an illusion that can create an owlbear, and the only obvious effect is that an owlbear just showed up. Get the bad guy!" is the reasonable response of most people; it's not the most cautious, but it's reasonable - otherwise, you'll probably need said illusionist to be making bluff checks (to disguise what he's really doing), which, mechanically, take longer to do (and are somewhat dubious anyway, considering it only states you can deceive/lie by words, though I suspect few GMs would run it that way); I suppose a GM could force a perception check to notice the sudden grain of sand - but at that point, with most tables and groups, you're flirting with jerk-GM territory*.
*
"That enemy just cast an illusion that can create an owlbear, and an the only obvious effect is that an owlbear just showed up. Make sure to stave off the owlbear until we ascertain for certain it's not real!" is the illusion working as intended, but shows no general understanding of cause and effect.
I mean, I could take precautions to try to meteor-proof my house - you never know, after all - but while being cautious is usually a good thing, it's kind of doofy and counter productive at that point.
Knowing that an illusion has just been cast, and seeing the obvious change either constitutes as proof, or the GM is suggesting (intentionally or not) that existential angst really needs to be a thing for PCs to go through every time they notice an illusion spell, as otherwise nothing can count as "proof" because "it could just be coincidence" with the exact same logical argument.
(There are, of course, other elements that can come into play that mitigate such; but in a vacuum, with those statements as-given in play, "proof" either doesn't exist and that line is meaningless, or it does and the argument as-presented needs refining as it's lacking data points.)
Or, you know, DM-Blake's examples could be compared and contrasted.
While different people have different styles of gaming, and there is nothing wrong with that, at most places, you're going to get strong push-back with such a heavy-handed use of "coincidental timing" unless you have a good reason for it, have built up trust as a GM expressly for those kinds of things, and have a way of getting the players to understand why it worked out after-the-fact, and/or it's rarely used (and when it is, it's used well). This push-back does not only extend to illusions, but most forms of heavily coincidental timing - it's an effect that tends to break immersion and cause people to question expression the story they're a part of.
Hence, most people, with basic observation and cause-and-effect, would ignore it and feel it's kind of cheap if it wasn't the illusion.
But either way, arcane sight beats all the illusions.
|
|
But either way, arcane sight beats all the illusions.
And at only 15,000 gold to make ([2k*3*5]/2 for continuous) is kind of a steal for "complete immunity to the preponderance of a spell-school at all times"* (unless you also ditch those rules, which, okay, then we're just going into house-rules/house-interpretations and will have a hard time talking about the same game). But it's still easy to prep-and-cast all the time, nonetheless.
No it doesn't. Arcane Sight tells you a ballpark of how magical something is - it doesn't even tell you which school of magic it's from without a Spellcraft check. Even with a successful check, it couldn't even tell the difference between an illusionary wall and a real wall which had had an illusion cast on it to be change colors.
Also - the whole idea of it being an unbelievable coincidence which something non-illusionary happens when someone casts an illusion ignores that, if that were the rules of magic, spell-casters would know that and trick their foes.
...I directly addressed that argument and yet you just completely ignored it.No. No I did not.
What you said,
No, because they can only identify what the caster is doing but not its effect. While they might strongly suspect that the appearance of a 20' tall befanged lemming is just the result of the illusion the wizard just cast they can't know for sure that the timing isn't just a coincidence. They only know that the mage cast an illusion spell. The result definitely could be an illusion and the timing means it very probably is an illusion. However, actual proof, not just a very strong suspicion, is required not to have to make the save to disbelieve.... and I responded, addressing that very idea, with,
"Well, I see a wall, and I threw a rock through the wall, but maybe there's someone using invisible teleportation effects or something that make the rock disappear instead of being an illusion." is roughly as valid as, "That guy cast a spell that explicitly allows him to make illusory creatures, and, voila, at the same time there is an illusory creature; could easily just be a coincidence."
Both rely on the idea that, "There may be factors I can't sense that make data appear different than it is." which, you know, is fine, but at that point, the guy making the save might as well start wondering if he's really a dude running around on an adventure, or he's merely a brain in a jar being told he's running around in an adventure on an advanced magical simulation situation. Either way, "It could be."
This implies (and was meant to) that there is no such thing as "proof" - either something obvious occurs, and it's illusory or it's not. If someone casts an illusion, and it's obvious, it makes sense that it's obvious, otherwise, it's a worthless illusion.
** spoiler omitted **
Ahh ok, so now that you have clarified I see that you did attempt to answer the question...with a false analogy. Soooooo much better. There is a huge difference between throwing a rock and watching it sail right through a wall and seeing someone cast a spell that could possibly create an illusory creature and then being attacked by a creature that you didn't notice before.
Unless you are a complete idiot you realize that the example of a monster, i.e. 20' lemming, was an exaggeration to demonstrate the point. I would like to assume you aren't a complete idiot but that would mean you are just being intellectually dishonest. You decide which is better. In an actual game the uses are going to far more subtle than appearing 20' lemmings or owl bears so obviously rushing from behind rocks after an illusion spell is cast and nothing else appears to have changed. Just making the spellcraft check to identify the spell doesn't automatically count as proof.
As Rediculon said above it would be sufficient to allow the saving throw to disbelieve.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a huge difference between throwing a rock and watching it sail right through a wall and seeing someone cast a spell that could possibly create an illusory creature and then being attacked by a creature that you didn't notice before.
Actually - while I'd probably count it as 'studying' and grant a saving throw, considering all of the weird magical stuff in Pathfinder, merely seeing a rock disappear when it hits a wall is hardly proof that the wall is in no way real.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Than nothing is proof of anything. Science is clearly a lie, and I can't trust anything with my senses anymore - in fact, there are probably a host of fairies with psychic powers that are altering my non-brain (because those don't exist, you know) so that I perceive things in a wacky fun-house land of coincidence and false timing. After all, if you want me to believe this is not all just either coincidence or layers of falsehood, you have to prove it.
Weeeelllllll, technically this is correct. Science cannot prove anything to be 100% correct for several reasons. A scientific law is simply an observation that has A. been repeatedly observed to be true by different parties under similar conditions (im sure theres a threshold number between 'theory' and 'law' but i don't know what it is) and B. (more importantly) never been shown to be false.
When you apply logic to a thing you cannot say you are correct unless you know every factor that could possibly affect the outcome, (why is the driveway wet? it must have rained!... or maybe it was the sprinklers) and since we live in a universe where you literally cannot know every piece of information there is to know (unknowable is one of my favorite terms) it follows that no scientific "law" can be 100% correct no matter how much time and observation you throw at it.
One of the reasons i started this thread is that I am interested in perception and causality, and seeing how other people model perception and causality (whether it be in real life or a simplified game version) is SUPER INTERESTING to me
EDIT: I'm not saying all scientific laws are automatically incorrect, im saying that the term "law" is a stand-in for the more accurate term "really strong and widely accepted assumption for dealing with the universe"
The old Shadow Conjuration/evocation guides had some good flavoring for disbelieving your own illusions, though that's more about how to fluff it after deciding if it's mechanically possible.
Couldn't find the link with a quick search, hopefully it's still out there. =s
No it doesn't. Arcane Sight tells you a ballpark of how magical something is - it doesn't even tell you which school of magic it's from without a Spellcraft check. Even with a successful check, it couldn't even tell the difference between an illusionary wall and a real wall which had had an illusion cast on it to be change colors.
HAHAHAH~! You are so right! I'd totally mixed it, in my mind, with the greater variant. Whoops!
Also - the whole idea of it being an unbelievable coincidence which something non-illusionary happens when someone casts an illusion ignores that, if that were the rules of magic, spell-casters would know that and trick their foes.
I'm not entirely sure if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or trying to fine-tune the argument I made with this statement. Sorry I'm being dense.
Than nothing is proof of anything. Science is clearly a lie, and I can't trust anything with my senses anymore - in fact, there are probably a host of fairies with psychic powers that are altering my non-brain (because those don't exist, you know) so that I perceive things in a wacky fun-house land of coincidence and false timing. After all, if you want me to believe this is not all just either coincidence or layers of falsehood, you have to prove it.
Weeeelllllll, technically this is correct. Science cannot prove anything to be 100% correct for several reasons. A scientific law is simply an observation that has A. been repeatedly observed to be true by different parties under similar conditions (im sure theres a threshold number between 'theory' and 'law' but i don't know what it is) and B. (more importantly) never been shown to be false.
When you apply logic to a thing you cannot say you are correct unless you know every factor that could possibly affect the outcome, (why is the driveway wet? it must have rained!... or maybe it was the sprinklers) and since we live in a universe where you literally cannot know every piece of information there is to know (unknowable is one of my favorite terms) it follows that no scientific "law" can be 100% correct no matter how much time and observation you throw at it.
One of the reasons i started this thread is that I am interested in perception and causality, and seeing how other people model perception and causality (whether it be in real life or a simplified game version) is SUPER INTERESTING to me
EDIT: I'm not saying all scientific laws are automatically incorrect, im saying that the term "law" is a stand-in for the more accurate term "really strong and widely accepted assumption for dealing with the universe"
This is more or less my point.
Either we accept what our senses tell us, or we don't. Ergo, either our senses are lying to us, or we have proof based on what they say - or else, the word "proof" doesn't really mean anything.