I've always found this term way too vague. Does just perceiving it at all count as interacting? Or do you have to physically touch the illusory thing?
This is my judgement, not RAW. In general, spending a standard action is required. This need not be an action to disbelieve, it can be an attempt to attack, cast a spell on, scrutinize (perhaps with Sense Motive) or similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just seeing it is not enough.
You have to spend an action to intentionally interact (via attack, feel, talk with, etc.). Usually needs a standard, but might use a move action.
Or you have to encounter something that give you a clue all is not as it seems. For example, seeing a fireplace with a fire but without heat. For example, seeing a goblin that casts no shadow or never moves. Both examples bight still require an action spent perceiving and thinking why things are not right. Otherwise, you only get a passive take-10 check.
Someone telling you it is an illusion gives you a bonus, but does not otherwise change things.
/cevah
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They more clearly define this in Ultimate Intrigue on page 158. You must always use some kind of action to get a roll against figments and glamers. You never get a free save just for seeing or hearing an illusion, not even a free take 10.
Disbelief and Interaction: All three of the subschools
above tend to have saving throw lines that say “Will
disbelief,” but they differ in how those saving throws apply.
Phantasms directly assail a creature’s mind, so the
creature automatically and immediately receives a saving
throw to disbelieve a phantasm. Figments and glamers,
however, have the more difficult-to-adjudicate rule that
creatures receive a saving throw to disbelieve only if they
“interact” with the illusion.
But what does it mean to interact with an illusion? It
can’t just mean looking at the illusion, as otherwise there
would be no need to make the distinction, but drawing
the line can be a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules can
help to define that difference. A creature that spends a
move action to carefully study an illusion receives a Will
saving throw to disbelieve that illusion, so that is a good
benchmark from which to work.
Using that as a basis, interacting generally means
spending a move action, standard action, or greater on a
character’s part. For example, if there were a major image
of an ogre, a character who tried to attack the ogre would
receive a saving throw to disbelieve, as would a character
who spent 1 minute attempting a Diplomacy check on
the ogre. A character who just traded witty banter with
the ogre as a free action would not, nor would a character
who simply cast spells on herself or her allies and never
directly confronted the illusory ogre. For a glamer,
interacting generally works the same as for a figment,
except that the interaction must be limited to something
the glamer affects. For instance, grabbing a creature’s ear
would be an interaction for a human using disguise self
to appear as an elf, but not for someone using a glamer
to change his hair color. Similarly, visually studying
someone would not grant a save against a glamer that
purely changed her voice.
|
Expect HUGE table variation. The only opinion that matters at all is that of the people at YOUR table (especially the GM but, in most groups, other opinions matter a bit too)
At some tables illusionists are the most powerful class in the game, at others they're nearly the weakest.
Even in PFS excpect HUGE table variation
I've always just interpreted as requiring something like "I [verb] the [object in question]". So whether it's a player looking for secret doors in an illusory wall, or shooting an arrow at an illusory creature, or poking an illusory rug covering a pit trap with a pole as they are checking for traps.
Normally I would say "looking at it" isn't enough, but I would allow a save for something like "I inspect [the thing]".
|
|
RAW it is pretty clear, you must spend a minimum of a move action interacting with it in some manner. Be that using an attack, or scrutinizing it for flaws, or even just focusing your will to disbelieve.
Also remember, just because it involves a will save to disbelieve does not make it a mind affecting spell, only Phantasm based illusions are mind affecting. Figments and Glamers work just fine (even better sometimes) against mindless creatures. A mindless creature will often attack something until it is dead, even if that something is an undying illusion. A mindless creature is not going to touch a wall to make sure it is real...it will just go around it...etc.
The guidance from Ultimate Intrigue makes it clear you need to spend some kind of action, at least a move, to be considered "interacting" with it.
How you interact with it, depends on exactly what kind of illusion it is.
It's all very subjective. With some DMs, illusions are worthless. With others they are awesome. <shrug>
Talk with your DM before focusing on illusions.
Also, suggest that your DM read the bits from Ultimate Intrigue before your talk. You need to read them too. Very useful guidelines.
There was also a helpful article in the Dragon Magazine years ago, by Skip Williams, entitled "All about illusions". IIRC it's from the DD3.0 era, but it's still valid and appropriate.
Part one is here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
Also, I just remembered a thread where I had a similar discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW range doesn't matter. Anyone who uses an action against an illusion should get a save. As a GM I might rule you need to be within a certain distance to attempt certain types of actions...you cannot scrutinize the details of an illusion from across the battlefield, etc.
So:
Yes Bob gets a save as soon as he makes an attack against the illusion.
So does Chris the Wizard.
And David the Archer.
Save DC should be fixed, some GM's might give a DC bonus based on perception range penalties...but that would be a house rule.
Bob the Fighter talking to an illusion from 10 feet away would only get a save if he used enough words to use up at least a move action.
For Chris and David, I personally would rule you could not get a save from that distance just from talking to an illusion.
If Bob makes his save for interacting and relays the message that it is an illusion, I would allow Chris and David to then make saves (with the +4 for being told it is an illusion).
Some GM's really have it out for illusion magic, and would allow everyone who even glimpses it to get a save, then if someone attacks it, everyone gets another save, etc. RAW this is wrong...but it does not stop some GMs from running it that way.
Something I keep forgetting to ask: what would an illusion look like after you made your save to disbelieve? I would imagine it depends on the spell, For example: I imagine illusory wall would have the wall look transparent, meaning it doesn't provide cover anymore, whereas shadow conjouration/evocation would look like a shadowy shape with the creature/object/spell effect superimposed on over it.
Does distance matter?
No.
If Bob the Fighter is in melee combat with the illusionary ogre mentioned, clearly he gets a save upon attacking it.
How about Chris the Wizard who lobs a Lightning Bolt from 120 feet away?
Yes, because Chris can see his lightning not interacting correctly with the illusion. For instance, even if the ogre was somehow immune to electricity damage, the hairs on its arms should rise, or there should be reflections of the lightning on its armor, or it should partially absorb the bolt causing a change in its shape. Or, or, or.
Or David the Archer who fires a volley of arrows from 400 feet away?
Yes, because David can see his arrow not interacting correctly with the illusion. The arrow goes through it, not deflected in the slightest, or fails to bounce of its armor, or fails to pin its foot to the ground, or fails to get any rational reaction from the ogre. Or, or, or.
Assuming they do all get saves, is the DC exactly the same?
Yes, because you can see what you can see. If the distance is trivial enough that you can stab your sword or target your spell, or aim your arrow, it's trivial enough that you can see it didn't interact correctly.
Now let's drop out of combat. If Bob the Fighter is 10 feet from the illusion and talks to it beyond a few brief words, it seems he gets a save, right?
If Bob has used an action to do so. I recognize you're thinking out of initiative, but what you try to do still has an action economy. What I mean is... if you want to open a lock when not threatened or under time pressure, you still make Disable Device checks. Even if you take 20, that is assumed to take 2 minutes, because you're taking 20 attempts, one per six seconds, as standard actions. So if Bob spends an hour using free actions to talk... no save. But if he does something involving speech that consumes an action... yes save.
What about Chris the Wizard hiding 100+ feet back shouting at the ogre?
Distance still has nothing to do with this.
What about David the Archer who is practically yodeling from 300+ feet away (shouting back and forth from across a football field or something)?
Still no difference.
Do they all get saves? Are the saves all the same DC?
Still yes, for the same reason.
Something I keep forgetting to ask: what would an illusion look like after you made your save to disbelieve? I would imagine it depends on the spell, For example: I imagine illusory wall would have the wall look transparent, meaning it doesn't provide cover anymore, whereas shadow conjouration/evocation would look like a shadowy shape with the creature/object/spell effect superimposed on over it.
As always, expect table variation.
That said, the will save allows disbelief, not negation. So at my table, the wall looks exactly the same, except the character now knows it's fake, so is willing to walk right through it. If you fail your save, you believe the wall is real, so will not attempt to walk through it or otherwise behave in any way as if it were not real. Before the save, you believe, so if you have reason to interact (for instance attacking a monster, or carefully testing a wall because your party members say they saw an illusion spell being cast), you can. But once the save is made, it's over, and I don't change the nature of the spell.
Here's one for you... a wizard casts invisibility on themselves. Can they see their own body? Probably not, right? They're invisible. So's their gear. So if they try to read a scroll... they can't see it, right? Still, I wouldn't penalize said wizard, so I'd allow the scroll casting. But hey, edge case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CRB: "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline." Note that translucent is not the same as transparent - it's like the difference between looking through a thin curtain and through a clear window. More details are lost with translucent than with transparent.
GM: "Okay, you realise that the balor is an illusion. Underneath it you see a medium-sized humanoid."
Specifically (which trumps the general) for the Illusory Wall spell: "Although the caster can see through his illusory wall, other creatures cannot, even if they succeed at their will save (but they do learn that it is not real)."
Another point of interest is that patterns and phantasm sub-school spells do not work on anyone/-thing immune to mind-affecting effects.
And, as mentioned by a previous poster, there is lots more in Ultimate Intrigue about adjudicating illusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CRB: "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline." Note that translucent is not the same as transparent - it's like the difference between looking through a thin curtain and through a clear window. More details are lost with translucent than with transparent.
Ooops. I've been doing it wrong. Thanks!
While it's true that translucent obscures more than transparent it doesn't necessarily mean there is any benefit rendered. Translucency is a continuum from barely anything obscured to nearly everything.
Are there any other examples where the level of translucency is addressed besides illusory wall? While it is a good touchpoint the text for that spell may be specific to that spell in particular rather than applying to all spells of the figment or phantasm subschools.
I was not using Illusory Wall as an example for what happens generally when one makes a saving throw against an illusion effect.
I cited Illusory Wall only to point out to Yqatuba that that particular spell acts differently from other illusion spells. The specifics of Illusory Wall trump the generality of the Illusion school information - but only for the case of Illusory Wall.
As for the definition of translucent, I'd go with semi-transparent. :)
More specifically, the light comes through, but not all details.
E.T.A. One important qualifier!
So Illusory Wall would still provide concealment then? Also I noticed I said cover by mistake the first time. I assume the wall never provides cover even if they believe in it since it has no physical presence. Correct?
|
|
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...like concealment, so you would see be able to see the illusion, but you would see anyone on the other side well enough to attack with no hindrance. As for cover, you cannot attack something through a wall...it would not block something like a fireball, but you could not shoot them with a bow since you cannot see them to target them.
One way around this is with unusual senses...if the wall only has visual components, things like tremorsense would automatically see through it. An illusion needs to have what senses it affects defined when it is cast.
As for a wizard using scrolls while invisible, they see themselves as translucent, so would be able to see the scroll enough to read it.
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...
I'm not so sure about that. Most illusions (at least the ones we're talking about) are Will disbelief, not Will negates. So the illusion is still present and active, you just don't believe it's real after a successful save. Aside from the quote above about translucency, I don't see anything saying there's no benefit/penalty.
As for a wizard using scrolls while invisible, they see themselves as translucent, so would be able to see the scroll enough to read it.
I don't see anything implying that in either the spell or the condition. What am I missing?
So, if I create a fog bank with silent image and someone "disbelieves" it what happens then? Can they see through it? Or do they just not believe it's real? If they can't see through it that makes silent image more powerful than a host of other vision blocking spells as it is more flexible and only requires a first level slot. From a game balance perspective that seems wrong.
It's not a zen koan. It's pretty cut and dry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I create a fog bank with silent image and someone "disbelieves" it what happens then? Can they see through it? Or do they just not believe it's real? If they can't see through it that makes silent image more powerful than a host of other vision blocking spells as it is more flexible and only requires a first level slot. From a game balance perspective that seems wrong.
Answered above:
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A creature who saves against your silent image'd fog bank sees a translucent outline of a fog bank but can otherwise see normally, including through it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...I'm not so sure about that. Most illusions (at least the ones we're talking about) are Will disbelief, not Will negates. So the illusion is still present and active, you just don't believe it's real after a successful save. Aside from the quote above about translucency, I don't see anything saying there's no benefit/penalty.
From the Magic chapter:
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
Disbelief means no benefit and no penalty.
As for a wizard using scrolls while invisible, they see themselves as translucent, so would be able to see the scroll enough to read it.I don't see anything implying that in either the spell or the condition. What am I missing?
See above.
Edit: I misread the second part. Anguish is correct here--you can't disbelieve invisibility, and there's no exception for the caster. An invisible spell caster cannot see themselves, including their objects. They'd have to negate the scroll's invisibility somehow, such as by dropping the scroll and picking it back up.
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...I'm not so sure about that. Most illusions (at least the ones we're talking about) are Will disbelief, not Will negates. So the illusion is still present and active, you just don't believe it's real after a successful save. Aside from the quote above about translucency, I don't see anything saying there's no benefit/penalty.
From the Magic chapter:
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.Disbelief means no benefit and no penalty.
^This is the point I was trying to make. If disbelief didn't negate all benefits from an illusion, illusions would absolutely be over powered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...I'm not so sure about that. Most illusions (at least the ones we're talking about) are Will disbelief, not Will negates. So the illusion is still present and active, you just don't believe it's real after a successful save. Aside from the quote above about translucency, I don't see anything saying there's no benefit/penalty.
From the Magic chapter:
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.Disbelief means no benefit and no penalty.
Jebus. I'm getting old. So many edge conditions I've either missed for years or have simply forgotten.
Thanks.
Once you see through the illusion, it no longer grants a benefit/penalty...I'm not so sure about that. Most illusions (at least the ones we're talking about) are Will disbelief, not Will negates. So the illusion is still present and active, you just don't believe it's real after a successful save. Aside from the quote above about translucency, I don't see anything saying there's no benefit/penalty.
From the Magic chapter:
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.Disbelief means no benefit and no penalty.Jebus. I'm getting old. So many edge conditions I've either missed for years or have simply forgotten.
Thanks.
No worries. It's way easy to forget these sorts of rules scattered across all kinds of sections, and despite (because of?) my hanging out on the RQ forum over the years I've become more and more inclined to just wing it for a lot of things.
|
|
RE: Invisibility
In the 35 or so years I have been playing tabletop RPGs, we have always ruled that someone using invisibility can see themselves. If they couldn't, they would not be able to perform a huge number of tasks...like retrieve anything from their own inventory, read scrolls, know what potion they are drinking, etc...even trying to draw a sheathed weapon you cannot see would become painfully difficult.
Since it is a Glamer, and you are the one using it, you automatically disbelieve it and see yourself...either wholly or as translucent is just fluff really. Anyone who casts an illusion spell can automatically see through their own illusions.
RE: Invisibility
In the 35 or so years I have been playing tabletop RPGs, we have always ruled that someone using invisibility can see themselves. If they couldn't, they would not be able to perform a huge number of tasks...like retrieve anything from their own inventory, read scrolls, know what potion they are drinking, etc...even trying to draw a sheathed weapon you cannot see would become painfully difficult.
Since it is a Glamer, and you are the one using it, you automatically disbelieve it and see yourself...either wholly or as translucent is just fluff really. Anyone who casts an illusion spell can automatically see through their own illusions.
This is all reasonable to houserule. But it's just that.
The invisibility spell doesn't involve belief. You can't automatically disbelieve it, unless you've got a reference somewhere. (I mean hey, I've only been wrong twice so far this thread, so let's finish the trifecta.)
Also, in the case of this spell, it's Will negates. The caster needs to voluntarily fail their save or else they don't become invisible at all. There's only the one save, with none for disbelief.
But you're right that by RAW, invisibility is limiting. I suspect few people run it RAW for that reason.
As for illusions and "interacting", if a PC does anything to the illusion, even a general Perception check in a room with an illusion in it, I count that as interacting. I know that isn't RAW, but it alleviates PC frustration and generally keeps the game moving.
As for invisibility, I've always played that invisible creatures can see themselves. I think if you couldn't see yourself, it just creates an unnecessary speedbump for the PC/creature to overcome, which can also add to PC frustration.
As for illusions and "interacting", if a PC does anything to the illusion, even a general Perception check in a room with an illusion in it, I count that as interacting. I know that isn't RAW, but it alleviates PC frustration and generally keeps the game moving.
A common houserule, but one I dislike.
This rule cuts both ways -- it basically neuters Figment and Glamer spells for use by PCs. At tables that implement it, I expect that Figments and Glamers will see minimal use. For example, in a social setting, you're almost guaranteed to have someone see through an illusion like disguise self, or even a higher level spell like veil.
In exploration or combat settings, this means that spells like silent/minor/major image lose most of their effectiveness.
I personally like these spells and enjoy using them when I play (and enjoy players using them creatively within the rules if I GM). So I don't want to put a rule in place that makes them a "likely waste," because then players WON'T use them (from experience).
Hmmmm, is there something between either you MUST spend an action and auto save? RAW has been discussed and is apparently that you can't save without the action cost.
For those that don't like that and still don't want to absolute best illusions would something like a perception check at something like double the spell DC work? Or a will save at higher penalty until an action is spent on interaction like +10 to the DC? These would obvously be houserules, but what level would be the most "middle of the road"?
|
|
Spell DCs and skill checks have such wildly divergent numbers that I think allowing any kind of skill check to bypass an illusion spell would neuter illusions.
I've played in numerous games where players have +40 or better on their perception checks before they even hit level 10...while a high DC for those levels might be something like 23-25. Even doubling the DC would mean a high perception character would still have a solid chance to just seeing right through a good illusion on accident.
Maybe a double or triple the spell DC sets the perception check to then be able to do a free will save? Make it a two part process? The disadvantage here is that it means a lot of dice rolling...
Maybe a double or triple the spell DC sets the perception check to then be able to do a free will save? Make it a two part process? The disadvantage here is that it means a lot of dice rolling...
I'd be interested in an analysis of correlation between highest perception scores and high Will saves. I suspect you might be mostly providing further advantage to high Will save classes, which already have the best odds of disbelieving Illusions.
|
|
Personally, I would never allow free saves just based on casually walking by an illusion...you will either have to set the skill check so high that only specialized characters like trap spotters ever stand a chance at it, or you just make illusion magic useless.
Why would someone even get a free save to disbelieve an illusion they just happen to walk past? Unless someone is specifically looking for illusions, they would have no reason to get a save.
Only way I would give anyone anything close to a free roll would be if they look at an illusion spell while actively using detect magic.
I thought of another question: If someone has see invisibility on can they tell if a creature would otherwise be invisible? and if so, what would they look like? I imagine they would be kind of translucent or have a weird foggy outline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought of another question: If someone has see invisibility on can they tell if a creature would otherwise be invisible? and if so, what would they look like? I imagine they would be kind of translucent or have a weird foggy outline.
It's in the spell description for see invisibility.
Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.
That's really weird as I checked the see invisibility description to see if it said and didn't find anything. Must have rolled a 1 on my perception check?
Last sentence of the first paragraph.
Interesting topic. So, if you use a Hat of Disguise and have to hand a member of the city guard your papers, does the city guard get a save? That would make the Hat of Disguise nearly useless, if it were so.
Interesting topic. So, if you use a Hat of Disguise and have to hand a member of the city guard your papers, does the city guard get a save? That would make the Hat of Disguise nearly useless, if it were so.
Doesn't have to. Handing your papers over, if those papers aren't an illusion wouldn't constitute interacting with the illusion. Shaking hands might, depending on the degree of alteration the illusion presents.
I would expect well trained or vigilant city guardsmen (not all of them) to be spending a standard action anyway to try Perception/Sense Motive on anyone they interact with. Cops don't just talk to you while daydreaming about last night's game, they're checking you for signs of nervousness, hidden weapons, etc.
Hat of Disguise is still useful for dodging pursuit or walking through a crowd without being spotted as yourself.
|
|
Depends on the cop, and the post...some of them are on high alert...some of them are in a donut coma...some of them will manufacture a reason to take out their weapon and kill you.
RPG guards would be basically the same...ranging the whole spectrum.
As for seeing through a hat of disguise, handing over papers by itself wouldn't do it...but shaking hands might, if your disguise changes the size of your hand, etc.