Does deathwatch lens's count as interacting with an illusion to disbelieve it?

[kinderschlager]

if someone uses an illusion to hide themselves or others from your view, if you had this item and where in it's range from them, would it count as an interaction to disbelieve the illusion? the deathwatc ability specifies
"You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct)"

so you'd be getting some feedback indicating something is there in visual range, you're just being hoodwinked into not believe it. does that not meet the criteria of interacting with the illusion to get a new throw to disbelieve it?

[blahpers]

Here's a fun thread on the subject of deathwatch vs. invisibility. Both SKR (Paizo rules designer at the time) and Michael Brock (PFS head honcho/"über-GM") agreed that it did not. I'd apply the same rationale to illusions, Stealth, and so on--if you can't see a creature, deathwatch won't let you see its life state, either.

[Azothath]

kinderschlager wrote:

if someone uses an illusion to hide themselves or others from your view, if you had this item and where in it's range from them, would it count as an interaction to disbelieve the illusion? the deathwatc ability specifies ...

no

[kinderschlager]

blahpers wrote:

Here's a fun thread on the subject of deathwatch vs. invisibility. Both SKR (Paizo rules designer at the time) and Michael Brock (PFS head honcho/"über-GM") agreed that it did not. I'd apply the same rationale to illusions, Stealth, and so on--if you can't see a creature, deathwatch won't let you see its life state, either.

unlike invisibility though they arent actually being obscured from vision or in any way being altered, the illusion is messing with your mind. they are still technically in view unlike invisibility, no?

[blahpers]

Your original post stated that the illusion hid the creatures in question from view, so I assumed that no, they weren't technically in view. What specific situation involving illusions are we discussing?

[Azothath]

there's a lot of chat revolving around Detect Magic and Invisibility. There are similarities.
Deathwatch
Luckily Invisibility doesn't feign death, thus Deathwatch can't 'see through it'.

[kinderschlager]

blahpers wrote:

Your original post stated that the illusion hid the creatures in question from view, so I assumed that no, they weren't technically in view. What specific situation involving illusions are we discussing?

a devil cast major illusion and everyone on one side of a room vanished, including themselves

[blahpers]

kinderschlager wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Your original post stated that the illusion hid the creatures in question from view, so I assumed that no, they weren't technically in view. What specific situation involving illusions are we discussing?

a devil cast major illusion and everyone on one side of a room vanished, including themselves

Is that major image? If so, as a figment, major image cannot make things (or creatures) vanish--it can only make things appear that aren't there. You'd need a glamer for that, such as invisibility. The spell that does what you describe is mass invisibility, which is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, far more powerful than the 3rd-level major image.

You could make the illusion of a wall with major image, and that would hide creatures from view--but then they'd be hidden from view, so we're back where we started.

[Azothath]

it depends on what the GM knows and what he intuits the creature using the ability knows. Two different things. Using forced perspective you could trick casual viewers from a given perspective using Major Image but it should require Craft(painting) or some such skill. It's done all the time with Haunted Houses/Scary Rides, Haunted Mansion at Disney.
I'd agree that just shortening the room with an illusory wall might be the easiest solution.

All in all your GM did something to create an effect and make the story go on. It's done. He's probably read this thread and gone 'darn it - I goofed' and won't do it again. If you feel cheated talk to him about it. There could be good story reasons, just bad execution or rationalization to achieve the effect.
let me tell you about "boxed text" and getting surprise automatically...

[blahpers]

Azothath wrote:

let me tell you about "boxed text" and getting surprise automatically...

Oof, don't get me started.