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.So say a PC wizard casts fly on himself and then a glamer to look like an eagle and flies over the enemy's base camp to scout while over a hundred feet up (let's say it's suspected the enemy has one or more people with See Invisibility so simply being invisible won't work).
There's like 50 enemy soldiers lounging around. One of them happens to look up, says "Hey cool, an eagle!" and points. The other 49 soldiers all spend a move action to look up at the eagle.
That would never happen in Pathfinder. All 50 soldiers are constantly observing in all directions, and all would instantly see the eagle because it doesn't have concealment and can't stealth. No perception check or action required.
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.So say a PC wizard casts fly on himself and then a glammer to look like an eagle and flies over the enemy's base camp to scout while over a hundred feet up (let's say it's suspected the enemy has one or more people with See Invisibility so simply being invisible won't work).
There's like 50 enemy soldiers lounging around. One of them happens to look up, says "Hey cool, an eagle!" and points. The other 49 soldiers all spend a move action to look up at the eagle.
You're saying that every single one of those soldiers would then get a save, right? They all spent a move action out of combat to look at a bird high in the sky.
Because at that point there's about a 92% chance of at least one of the soldiers rolling a natural 20 and seeing through the illusion.
They would not get a save just for seeing an illusion. That would totally nerf an Illusory Wall. Merely seeing it is not enough. Were a guard to shout "I think it might be an illusion, can everyone look?" then that guard and any who study it (via an action spent to perceive it) would get saves.
/cevah
The FAQ makes it pretty clear you have to spend some sort of action to get a save against an illusion.
So yeah, just "seeing" it is not enough.
But visually studying it as a move action would be.
Yet another question: does being pushed through an illusory wall (such as with bull rush or awesome blow) cause the creature to automatically make its save? I would think so as it's pretty hard to not realize a wall is fake if you just moved through it as easily as if it was air.
Yet another question: does being pushed through an illusory wall (such as with bull rush or awesome blow) cause the creature to automatically make its save? I would think so as it's pretty hard to not realize a wall is fake if you just moved through it as easily as if it was air.
I might give a bonus, but it could be a Phase Door or other effect, not necessarily an illusion. The exceptionally weak willed or unlucky might be unable to see through it even after walking through it.
You're kind of at house ruling territory.
Personally, I would allow spell craft or know(arcana) checks to identify the effect as being an illusion and not other magic and outright allow for success without saving. Otherwise I might provide a bonus for falling through the illusion.
Honestly there aren't explicit rules on how to deal with this.
They would not get a save just for seeing an illusion. That would totally nerf an Illusory Wall. Merely seeing it is not enough. Were a guard to shout "I think it might be an illusion, can everyone look?" then that guard and any who study it (via an action spent to perceive it) would get saves.So the guards are 500 feet away and see a wall blocking the canyon. One guard says "Could that be an illusion?" and they all spend 3 seconds (a move action) looking at it. They all get saves?
Notice a visible creature -- 0
Distance to the source, object, or creature -- +1/10 feet
A forest fire can be spotted from as far away as 2d6 × 100 feet by a character who makes a Perception check, treating the fire as a Colossal creature (reducing the DC by 16).
A character who succeeds on a Perception check, treating the fire as a Colossal creature (reducing the DC by 16), can spot a grassfire from as far away as 2d6 x 800 feet rather than 2d6 x 100 feet as in the case of a forest fire.
Lets say the wall is effectively sized as a Colossal creature. That means apply a -16 to the DC.
So, applying these get a wall at 500' is DC 0-16+50 = DC 34 to see.Only the guards that make a DC 34 perception check can even attempt the save. I don't think any guard will make it.
With a Spyglass, you get:
Price 1,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size. Characters using a spyglass take a –1 penalty on Perception skill checks per 20 feet of distance to the target, if the target is visible
This changes the DC to 9. This can be made by a guard, but then only guards with a 1000 gp tool get a save.
/cevah
|
There is no written rule about how far away from an illusion you can be and still get a save, and no written rules about perception checks correlating to the will save to see through an illusion...it basically comes down to GM fiat at that point.
Most GMs would rule you have to be close enough to actually see the details of an illusion well enough to discern it's true nature...so no scrutinizing an eagle flying 100 feet above you, and no scrutinizing a wall 500 feet away, unless your GM just really hates illusionists.
This is GM discretion territory.
Is this high level or low level? Are the PCs scouting, or about to rain fire from behind a wall? Are the guards alert or relaxed? The giant wall out of nowhere could be a bunch of walls of stone, the eagle could just be an eagle. They should probably be suspicious of illusion magic before allowing anyone to just take a move action to study something closer.
Also, as a general rule of thumb, it shouldn't be everyone and their grandmother getting a save.
A good GM doesn't let any scatterbrained idea using silent image work, they also don't make the disbelief spells worthless by letting anyone who looks at an illusion get a save. It's up to you and what works for your table to keep the story going, and your PCs having fun with their toys without breaking the game.
Man, imagine how hard it would be to see the sun.
I've read this argument a dozen times and I might finally have a rebuttal.
You can't see the sun. It's too far, despite its size. What you can see is the light that it emits, which literally travels to you.
There aren't specific rules for light propagation and the inverse-square law, but evidence indicates that the sun's light is visible when it's overhead.
Man, imagine how hard it would be to see the sun.I've read this argument a dozen times and I might finally have a rebuttal.
You can't see the sun. It's too far, despite its size. What you can see is the light that it emits, which literally travels to you.
There aren't specific rules for light propagation and the inverse-square law, but evidence indicates that the sun's light is visible when it's overhead.
This is true, you only notice it because it pumps out a massive amount of light. If it didn't emit light it would be extremely difficult to see from the surface of the planet without the aid of tools.
I mean, I specifically said they all took a move action to look at it.The FAQ makes it pretty clear you have to spend some sort of action to get a save against an illusion.
So yeah, just "seeing" it is not enough.
But visually studying it as a move action would be.
Why are they spending an action to investigate it?
Seriously.
If the guards see a wall spring into existence they would be justified to spend an action looking at it to see that in fact it is not a real physical wall created from conjuration magic, but an illusory wall created from illusion magic.
But if the wall was a permanent magical illusion inside of a mansion (too hide door) casually walking into the room would not allow for a save. And unless you started investigating the wall for some other reason, it's unlikely you would get the save against the illusory wall. Taking a move action to investigate the wall of the mansion would be working on meta knowledge unless you had some other reason to investigate.
And that's probably what your player in this instance is upset about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the world is as magical as it is and angels/devils/demons walk around in disguise and people are mind controlled or dopplegangers and so on, it seems to kind of make sense to double check anyone you're going to spend at least a few minutes with to see if you spot any illusion.
In a world where people can craft and wear disguises, and where people commit espionage and sabotage, it makes sense to double check each person carefully to spot disguises and spies. I can see how this would play out in a campaign.
The PCs go to meet the king, who desires their help in locating a possible spy ring from a rival kingdom. As they walk into the room, the PCs carefully eye up every guard, examining every square where they walk with caution. When they reach the king after several minutes, he looks slightly confused.
King: "Um, what are you doing?"
PC 1: "We can't be too careful. Your guards might be spies, or illusions, or even doppelgangers. In fact, YOU might even be a spy, or an illusion."
The whole party stares at the king intently, looking him over.
PC 2: "Yeah, and we needed to check your throne room for traps. That is, if it's really even a throne room. I rolled low on my perception checks, so I'm pretty unsure."
PC 3: "Excuse me, I need to go examine your throne."
King: Wow, I know adventurers are eccentric, but I think these guys are actually crazy. "You know, uhhh, on second thought, the reason I called you here is to invite you to a fine dinner next month."
PC 1: "He's lying! This so-called king must be an impostor! Maybe even a demon!"
PC 2: "Tell us the truth, demon, or we'll have to get rough with you! Where is the real king?!?"
PC 3 begins casting detect magic.
King (0 ranks in spellcraft): "Help! Assault! Magic!"
That's...really not helpful when I, as the GM, am trying to figure out how to do exactly that. It's not the extremes on either side that's the issue, it's the massive grey area in the middle.
The rules do not give you a clear answer. It's up to you and your table to clear up that gray area.
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.
You decide what 'carefully study as a move action' means. Do you have to be within 5'? 10'? 5000'? Able to perceive it at all with the distance based perception check penalties? If you are taking a distance based perception penalty can you carefully study at all?
There aren't answers to these questions in the rules and there shouldn't be. Who gets to take this action and when needs to be decided on a case by case basis.
If a PC wanted to tell if another person was using an illusory disguise, I'd argue that they should be within 5' or so, able to see the other person clearly and study close details. Roughly the distance between speakers in a typical conversation. Same with random furniture, walls and such. Careful study, to me, means close enough to touch in most cases.
However, massive illusions of walls, statues, boulders, monsters, etc. might be able to be 'studied' from further away. For instance a PC should probably be able to carefully study an illusion of a great wyrm dragon from outside the melee reach of an actual great wyrm dragon, but they probably shouldn't be able to carefully study a halfling who is disguised as a gnome from 30' away.
Searching a house? Upon entering a room take 30 seconds to look around, that's 10 checks for illusions on anything that could possibly be an illusion. Etc.
Typically this is called taking 10 on a perception check to search the room. It takes a minute, and should probably allow any PC doing so a will save to disbelieve any illusions in the room.
I personally utilize SoP's 'The Trickster's Handbook', by DDS, for guides on how to handle Illusions. There is a portion of the guide that can be found here.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were GMing and players insisted on checking everything for illusion magic at all times, I would make them regret doing so in the most ridiculous fashions I could come up with. The above post about the king would just be the start.
That is meta gaming in the truest sense of the word, and I would not tolerate it at any table I run.
I would make Sleeves of Many Garments the most common magic item ever, everyone would be cloaked in illusion magic at all times. Most cosmetics would be done through illusion magic, etc. Why paint a room when you can cast a minor illusion to recolor the walls? That flower garden isn't pretty enough...poof, illusions...and on, and on.
I would make the player who insisted on checking everything for illusions so completely paranoid of everyone and everything around them, I would torment their every moment in game...it would be glorious.
So how about the moon? It's just reflecting the sun's light, not emitting its own light.
Sounds like a great candidate for a circumstance modifier for high albedo.