Damage from illusionary creatures

[Morag the Gatherer]

This could have come up in the last game I ran. The party was faced with several monsters, some of whom were real; others were illusions.
In the 1st round those of the party who could see the monsters failed their will saves. What would have happened if an illusionary monster hit a PC for damage.

Morag

[Jeraa]

Morag the Gatherer wrote:

This could have come up in the last game I ran. The party was faced with several monsters, some of whom were real; others were illusions.

In the 1st round those of the party who could see the monsters failed their will saves. What would have happened if an illusionary monster hit a PC for damage.

Morag

Nothing. An illusion only causes damage if it specifically says it does.

[Ascalaphus]

Most illusions do not have any physical substance. If you actually get "hit" by one, that would give you proof it's fake - automatic disbelief. So a wise illusionist tries to waste as much of people's time as he can before he actually gets the illusions into battle.

[Joana]

Crypt of the Everflame had some illusory monsters and had this to say:

Quote:

These [redacted] are illusory. Whenever they hit or are hit by one of the player character, they react appropriately, but give that PC a DC xx Will save to notices that these [redacted] are not real. Characters who are told that the [redacted] are not real receive a +4 bonus on the save. If the save is failed, the character believes the wounds caused by the attacking [redacted]. Once all of the characters have disbelieved or all of the [redacted] are slain, both the [redacted] and the wounds caused by them disappear.

That was very early in PfRPG's life and might have been contradicted since then, but I always liked the mechanic.

[UnArcaneElection]

@OP: Were these monsters Figments (Major Image, etc.) Or Shadow Monsters (Shadow Conjuration, etc.)? Most Illusions can't do damage, but Shadow Illusions can (although the damage is reduced in case of disbelief). Phantasms can wreck or even kill targets, although generally not by hit point damage.

[Claxon]

Yeah unless the spell is a Shadow Conjuration spell the illusion are completely not real, meaning they don't deal damage. I haven't seen anything in recent writing to indicate that they even leave some sort wound on the attacked creature, which would provoke a save, possibly with a bonus. The characters might even know that they aren't real without the save, the rules are a bit unclear.

See this thread I started a while back to address these sort of questions.

[Pizza Lord]

Barring a special case, like a illusion [phantasm] that makes a target think they have wounds, illusions do no damage (and even then they just think they have damage.) Otherwise you need a an illusion that is at least partly real, typically through use of shadow material.

If an intelligent illusionist has a choice, any illusory creatures that attack a foe will always 'miss'. You can roll the attack (secretly if you must) but no matter what tell the target that the attack misses. Otherwise, as pointed out, you're giving your foes a free Will save not only if they manage to strike one of your illusions, but if your illusion strikes them. Best to use them for distraction, uncertainty, and tactical advantage.

[UnArcaneElection]

Now here's an interesting thought: Could the illusionary monsters do Aid Another to the real ones? My suspicion is No, because Figments normally cannot threaten, but if the Illusionist has cast the spell using Threatening Illusion, maybe in that case it should work. Too bad you have to be a Gnome to take this feat.

[Pizza Lord]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Now here's an interesting thought: Could the illusionary monsters do Aid Another to the real ones?

That is an interesting thought. Now obviously it would be a no for Aid Another checks for skill checks, but I think we're clearly talking about the combat option that either grants an ally +2 to their next attack against a foe or a +2 AC against attacks from that foe towards your ally

There are some people that might claim an illusion doesn't threaten but for Aid Another it generally mentions being in melee reach, so if the illusion so if the foe and the ally are within legal distance it could work. I think since illusions can attack a target (not that it has any real effect) there's nothing preventing an illusion from being distracting to a foe. In fact, I think that's a perfectly reasonably and accepted power of illusions.

I would allow an illusion to make an attack against AC 10 (figuring out its attack bonus not-withstanding) and the target gets a Will save for interacting. If the Aid Another maneuver succeeds then the target is distracted and an ally gets a +2 to attack or a +2 to AC for the successful distraction. If the maneuver works, then even on a passing Will save, the foe is still distracted and drawn off-guard even though now they realize their mistake.

That's the method I would go with and most likely it would require an illusion to either be specifically 'programmed' to do that or be under the control of an intelligent creature, since designating allies for benefits and such generally requires a tactical awareness of your surroundings, which may be beyond most illusions (some can react to certain stimulus, but still it's most likely to require a controlled illusion.)

[Ascalaphus]

I think Threatening Illusion is a case of a feat in a softcover "causing rules" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

CRB > Combat wrote:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

If illusions can make attacks - regardless of whether those attacks are effective - they can threaten.

CRB > Magic > Illusion wrote:

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. 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. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).

Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

The way I'm reading this, figments can attack, just that they don't do any damage themselves. They're useless for attacking directly.