I just played an adventure where a character cast an illusory Wall of Stone (using Illusory Object) and the GM ruled that the caster could make the illusion translucent from the side his allies were on so that they would not need to save to shoot through it. I thought that was reasonable, since an illusion should have whatever visual properties the caster wants it to have. So if you want it see-through on one side and opaque on the other, fine. But it made me wonder about the case where enemies and allies are both on the same side of the wall.
-Would the caster's allies have to save just like the bad guys?
-What if the caster gave her allies a heads up that it was an illusion, either ahead of time or by communicating it in some way that only the allies understood? Would they then not have to save? Or would they maybe get a circumstance bonus to their save?
Looking for opinions on how people would handle this.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
They'd know it was an illusion, but the Disbelieving Illusions rules say "the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can't ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it." It also says that even a disbelieved illusion is still partially visible, so it may grant concealment at GM's discretion.
I'd also point out that shooting through it probably proves to the enemies that it's illusory, so they've got the same amount of knowledge at that point.
Super Zero wrote: They'd know it was an illusion, but the Disbelieving Illusions rules say "the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can't ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it." It also says that even a disbelieved illusion is still partially visible, so it may grant concealment at GM's discretion.
I'd also point out that shooting through it probably proves to the enemies that it's illusory, so they've got the same amount of knowledge at that point.
Yes I guess there's no exemption for allies having to save.
And the caster's allies didn't end up shooting through the wall, exactly because they didn't want to give away the illusion.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Note also that there's nothing allowing the caster to automatically disbelieve the illusion, either. House rules may be warranted for sensible illusion play.
Tarpeius wrote: Note also that there's nothing allowing the caster to automatically disbelieve the illusion, either. House rules may be warranted for sensible illusion play. Well I kinda take it for granted that the caster doesn't need to save.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Your allies totally have to make the same saves, and I'm not onboard with one side being clear and the other opaque.
And if you communicate to them you're casting an illusion, you'd better say so in code or most enemies will know too.
I hadn't thought about a caster seeing their own illusion. Obviously they know its illusory nature, yet may they see through it automatically? Get a free save when they cast it?
What if there's a medusa on the other side and they'd rather not see?
Your allies should presumably have a decent idea of what you can do, so that should help clue them in.
Tbh that's GMs fault.
It's not 21st century to roll illusion with some bizarre properties, like appearing to be stone at one side, and transparent on the other.
If it's a stone wall - it's a stone wall for everyone.
Now allies normally should be allowed automatically disbelieve the illusion, but that will still restrict them to firing through illusion blindly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What does what century it is have to do with how magic works?!
Pretty sure it's no less imaginary for me to make up how life on Mars works if I make it up today than it was for Edgar Rice Burroughs to make it up in a different century - though I'd love a citation for any rules of what imaginary things are allowed to be imagined to do that have changed since then.
As for the game rules: It's clearly not the intention for an illusion-using caster to have to disbelieve their own illusions or suffer whatever negative effects the illusion would cause them.
It's not fair, however, to extend that same assumption to allies as allies are not inherently provided protection from other forms of broadly-applicable magic. They get, at most, to be sure they have an illusion to disbelieve - but they don't get to automatically pass whatever check/save to disbelieve any more than they get to automatically pass their save to reduce area effect damage.
thenobledrake wrote:
As for the game rules: It's clearly not the intention for an illusion-using caster to have to disbelieve their own illusions or suffer whatever negative effects the illusion would cause them.
Yes, they do.
Just like evokers need to dodge their fireballs or suffer the negative consequences.
Quote: If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it.
For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it.
A fireball and an illusion are not equal, though.
When casting a fireball (or other area effect) the caster can aim - they are not inherently stuck in the area.
And illusion, however, if allowed to work on the caster just like everyone else would then always be targeting the caster unless it has specified targets.
Neither from a game-play perspective, nor from a "makes sense" perspective does an illusion you create not being as known to be the illusion you just made as possible seem like the intended result. A caster failing to disbelieve their own illusion shouldn't be possible.
thenobledrake wrote: What does what century it is have to do with how magic works?! Fact that character simply not aware of materials that can be transparent on one side, and non-transparent on the other?..
Spellscaster still need clearly imagine illusion he/she creating.
Abyssalwyrm wrote: thenobledrake wrote: What does what century it is have to do with how magic works?! Fact that character simply not aware of materials that can be transparent on one side, and non-transparent on the other?..
Spellscaster still need clearly imagine illusion he/she creating. Firstly, things do not need to be real in order for someone to imagine them - thus whether or not a person is aware of a real material that can be transparent on one side and non-transparent on the other has zero bearing on what they can imagine, nor on what magic can or cannot do.
Second, one way glass is old enough of a thing to potentially be among the other technological advances that exist on Golarion (which parts of have a roughly Victorian-era level of technology)
And last, but not at all least: Golarion is a word on which literal space vessels have crashed, so someone being able to imagine one-way glass even if it doesn't exist somewere on Golarion is a "yeah, definitely."
Especially given things generally have to be imagined before someone invents them.
thenobledrake wrote:
And last, but not at all least: Golarion is a word on which literal space vessels have crashed, so someone being able to imagine one-way glass even if it doesn't exist somewere on Golarion is a "yeah, definitely.
Crashed - yes. But no one at this timeline understand those technologies.
The whole "problem" of yours originates from you and/or your GM assuming that spell is capable of more than it actually it says.
Most effective and elegant solution to the problem usualy most simple one.
In this case, since neither spell description nor overall illusion rules specify that you can create illusion objects with very unusual properties. Solution would be - you really can't.
You can created a wall. It could be a wooded, a stone, or metal wall. But either cases it still will be a wall. Just a wall.
thenobledrake wrote: A fireball and an illusion are not equal, though.
When casting a fireball (or other area effect) the caster can aim - they are not inherently stuck in the area.
you do aim illusions.
And cloud kill if you do not like fireball. Or obscuring mist. Or wall of stone. It wall of wind....
Mellored wrote: thenobledrake wrote: A fireball and an illusion are not equal, though.
When casting a fireball (or other area effect) the caster can aim - they are not inherently stuck in the area.
you do aim illusions.
And cloud kill if you do not like fireball. Or obscuring mist. Or wall of stone. It wall of wind.... But those are not illusions. Those are spells that create real effects which damage things, like fire, wind, etc. A caster creating an illusion, which by definition is not real, knows that it is not real because she just created it and controls every aspect of it. She should automatically be able to ignore it or not as she wishes.
mrspaghetti wrote: Mellored wrote: thenobledrake wrote: A fireball and an illusion are not equal, though.
When casting a fireball (or other area effect) the caster can aim - they are not inherently stuck in the area.
you do aim illusions.
And cloud kill if you do not like fireball. Or obscuring mist. Or wall of stone. It wall of wind.... But those are not illusions. Those are spells that create real effects which damage things, like fire, wind, etc. A caster creating an illusion, which by definition is not real, knows that it is not real because she just created it and controls every aspect of it. She should automatically be able to ignore it or not as she wishes. You can automatically walk though it of you wish. But not automatically see though.
At least according to the rules. By all means, play the game the way that is most fun for you and your group.
Abyssalwyrm wrote: Now allies normally should be allowed automatically disbelieve the illusion, but that will still restrict them to firing through illusion blindly. That directly contradicts p.298 of the CRB
Disbelieving Illusions
Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).
If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed.
If you're saying that they automatically get to disbelieve, then they can see through it and wouldn't be shooting through it blindly. At worst, they would have a chance to miss due to concealment.
I think you might be trying to say that they automatically know that it is an illusion, which I agree with if you assume the caster tipped them off with a code word (or whatever) during casting. In that case they would be able to shoot through it blindly even if they failed to save or did not attempt a save.
Now I find myself wondering if they would be able to walk through it if they knew it is an illusion, even if they can't see through it? In the case described above, would the character who had been pushed through the door be able to then walk through it once she knew it wasn't real, even if she failed her save?
Also, Blocking sight does not block line of effect. Being unable to see just applies a flat DC5 check on targeting creatues. So you can still drop a flame strike and the like without penalty.
Though doing so will likely let them know they can do the same.
Also also, Unless they take an action to hide, you will still know where they are. And they know where you are.
Abyssalwyrm wrote: ...no one at this timeline understand those technologies. That's another false requirement for being able to imagine something.
People constantly imagine things they don't actually understand. And actually, it doesn't even require understanding how a technology works for that tech to be real and even to use it.
Most people don't actually know how the tech of "you can see through it from that side, but it's a mirror from this side" works - but they still know that it does exist.
Mellored wrote: you do aim illusions. You're misunderstanding my point.
I'm not talking about "aim" as in select the placement. I mean targeting the effect.
The effect of a fireball is to damage the targets, and you can elect not to be one of said targets when casting a fireball.
The effect of an illusory wall (technically illusory object, but I'm talking about casting it to make a big vision-blocking illusion as that's a majorly useful thing the spell can do) is to block your opponent's vision or at least delay them as they interact and disbelieve - and if you can't automatically see through your illusion, then you have been affected by the spell just as much as your opponents have.
Mellored wrote: Being unable to see just applies a flat DC5 check on targeting creatues. Actually, according to the text quoted in an above post it'd be a DC5 check to target through an illusion you've successfully disbelieved, or no check at all at the GM's discrtion - if you haven't disbelieved an illusion and because of that illusion you can't see the target at all, it's not concealed (DC5), it's a DC11 like all the other cases of attacking something you can't see at all.
thenobledrake wrote: Neither from a game-play perspective, nor from a "makes sense" perspective does an illusion you create not being as known to be the illusion you just made as possible seem like the intended result. A caster failing to disbelieve their own illusion shouldn't be possible. Knowing it's an illusion and disbelieving it are two distinct things, though, although the latter includes the former. Knowing it's an illusion is probably enough most of the time, I'd think.
Unless you're specifically using it to block line of sight between you and your enemies, I guess, and aiming spells like that generally has the same effect on the caster.
Super Zero wrote: Knowing it's an illusion and disbelieving it are two distinct things, though, although the latter includes the former. Knowing it's an illusion is probably enough most of the time, I'd think.
Unless you're specifically using it to block line of sight between you and your enemies, I guess, and aiming spells like that generally has the same effect on the caster.
Knowing the wall is an illusion doesn't let the caster of that illusion target an enemy on the other side of their illusion with a spell that requires them to see the target, and involves a flat check to target with a spell that doesn't require a seen target.
So if the caster doesn't automatically see through their own illusion, they have to try to disbelieve - and they could fail to do so. They're absolutely sure it's an illusion because they just made the thing, yet the rules (by failing to explicitly exempt them or provide any bonuses) say they'd have just as much trouble in actually acting like the illusion isn't convincing them it's real as everyone else.
That shouldn't be how the game works.
Isn't that the entire point of the disbelieving mechanic? That knowing it's an illusion isn't the same as seeing through it?
After all, if you immediately attack through it all of your enemies also know it's an illusion.
No, I don't think "the entire point" of the disbelieving mechanic is for illusions to also need to be disbelieved by the person that created them.
I think the entire point of that mechanic is for everyone else to have a way to deal with an illusion besides believing it for as long as the spell lasts.
And while some things will clue your enemies in to the illusion, not all will - some will leave them looking around trying to figure out where the effect came from.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
as writen nothing makes a caster immune to his own illusions.
he surely knows that it's an illusion, but since he made a "wall" in front of him, even if it's a fake wall, he needs to excert a bit of effort to see through it. At least that's my take.
as for imagining things way beyond the technological era, i wouldn't personally allow it, but i think it's a grey area. The player is basically metagaming his medieval character having the modern knowledge of the player, so as i wouldn't allow someone to make an illusion of a see-through car and have his gnome friend sketch how it works, i wouldn't allow a dual faced wall.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote: as for imagining things way beyond the technological era, i wouldn't personally allow it, but i think it's a grey area. The player is basically metagaming his medieval character having the modern knowledge of the player, so as i wouldn't allow someone to make an illusion of a see-through car and have his gnome friend sketch how it works, i wouldn't allow a dual faced wall. The mere existence of science fiction shows anyone can imagine things way beyond their own technological era. And something needn't even be imagined as an application of science. An animated stone statue may one day be possible via technology, but I can imagine it right now without considering how it would work. Likewise with a brick wall that is fully transparent from one angle and yet fully opaque from another.
Tarpeius wrote: shroudb wrote: as for imagining things way beyond the technological era, i wouldn't personally allow it, but i think it's a grey area. The player is basically metagaming his medieval character having the modern knowledge of the player, so as i wouldn't allow someone to make an illusion of a see-through car and have his gnome friend sketch how it works, i wouldn't allow a dual faced wall. The mere existence of science fiction shows anyone can imagine things way beyond their own technological era. And something needn't even be imagined as an application of science. An animated stone statue may one day be possible via technology, but I can imagine it right now without considering how it would work. Likewise with a brick wall that is fully transparent from one angle and yet fully opaque from another. what you can and cant imagine is often bounded by what is available. While there may exist some extremely rare genious that can skip a few generations to imagine something out of bounds, using this to metagame your character having knowledge that your player has due to you living a few centuries ahead is the definition of metagame.
the spell is illusionary object, you imagine an object, what stops your "character" to imagine a spaceship because his brilliant mind somehow lept from horsecarts to spaceships?
p.s. keep in mind that you are imagining an object. NOT a magical effect on an on=bject, not a force, not anything you want. Just an object.
Yep, it's an object you're envisioning. It should appear as that same object from all angles, since that's how objects work.
If one opens up the door of giving that object bizarre properties (whether or not those properties could exist in reality or purely imagination), then expect table variation, mostly negative. Not a good trick to bring to the table without talking beforehand.
Heck, why have one side blurry when you could have it striped for easy viewing, even mostly invisible? And you could make a cube where each side has a different level of transparency, maybe coming from both inside and out. Then one could drop hollow cubes on your enemy that block their vision, yet not yours. Or make impossible mirrors where you can see their reflection, but they can't see yours. I think there's a point where one quickly departs from making objects and enters the realm of phenomena, maybe even actualizing abstract concepts with enough imagination.
Being able to say "light passes through differently from different sides" isn't the same as being able to envisage an actual object that can do that. One-way mirrors may be the exception here if the caster knows their composition, yet note those don't work well if they have light behind them. And a mirror would be rather conspicuous, albeit maybe humorous vs. mindless creatures.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Not only is this not meta-gaming (except the part where you insist that the player imagined it rather than the character), but it isn't at all reasonable.
People in the real world imagined whole swatches of the monsters and magic found in the game thousands of years ago from just the normal creatures on Earth.
What the people of Golarion can imagine with all those things actually existing in their world would be at least as outlandish in comparison.
Some dude on Earth saw a lizard and imagined it could fly and breath fire. Some dude on Golarion saw a dragon and could imagine literally anything.
Or to phrase that differently: When you say
shroudb wrote: what you can and cant imagine is often bounded by what is available. You are providing a reason why the character should have the ability to imagine even wilder stuff than real people can.
thenobledrake wrote: Not only is this not meta-gaming (except the part where you insist that the player imagined it rather than the character), but it isn't at all reasonable.
People in the real world imagined whole swatches of the monsters and magic found in the game thousands of years ago from just the normal creatures on Earth.
What the people of Golarion can imagine with all those things actually existing in their world would be at least as outlandish in comparison.
Some dude on Earth saw a lizard and imagined it could fly and breath fire. Some dude on Golarion saw a dragon and could imagine literally anything.
Or to phrase that differently: When you say
shroudb wrote: what you can and cant imagine is often bounded by what is available. You are providing a reason why the character should have the ability to imagine even wilder stuff than real people can.
and that's why i said that it's grey area and up to gm to decide if he'll allow it or not.
one gm may allow you to create one sided walls, another may allow you to bring forth space shuttles, and another may allow neither.
as i said, i think it's the epitome of metagaming to bring forth modern knowledge to medieval settings, but in your games you can allow it if you are fine with it.
using an abstract shere like illusion with an abstract game term like "object" will lead to having the gm being the final arbitary of what can and cant happen.
For homegames its easy to come to an understanding, for pfs i guess that's what judges are for.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote: the spell is illusionary object, you imagine an object, what stops your "character" to imagine a spaceship because his brilliant mind somehow lept from horsecarts to spaceships? Hindu myth from 1500 BC includes flying palaces (Vimana) that could travel underwater and into space. It really makes no sense to restrict in-game characters from imagining things that even real-life ancient peoples could conceive.
Yeah, and the super-futuristic, nearly inconceivable technology of something that looks different on one side than the other has been around a while too. It's called a mirror.
Hope everyone was sitting down for that, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt if they faint or something.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: A fireball and an illusion are not equal, though.
When casting a fireball (or other area effect) the caster can aim - they are not inherently stuck in the area.
And illusion, however, if allowed to work on the caster just like everyone else would then always be targeting the caster unless it has specified targets.
Point of order: the illusion spells being discussed don't have targets at all. So yes, the spell affects the caster, all of the allies, and all of the enemies, and all of the bystanders for that matter.
Phantom Pain has a specific target. It also doesn't provide for disbelief. It just has a Will save.
Color Spray targets an area and all of the creatures in it. It also doesn't allow for disbelief. It just has a will save.
Illusory Object however, does allow for disbelief. But it doesn't have a target. Not a target creature. Not a targeted area. It simply exists. And affects all creatures that see it. All allies, all enemies, all bystanders, and in my opinion even the caster.
Though the caster probably should get a will save to disbelieve automatically without having to interact or seek against the object.
mrspaghetti wrote: Yeah, and the super-futuristic, nearly inconceivable technology of something that looks different on one side than the other has been around a while too. It's called a mirror.
Hope everyone was sitting down for that, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt if they faint or something.
you do understand the fundamental difference of a mirror and a wall. Right?
shroudb wrote: as i said, i think it's the epitome of metagaming to bring forth modern knowledge to medieval settings... Golarion is not a "medieval setting," and even if it were there's still no reason to try and assign a limitation to what can be imagined because "modern knowledge" isn't actually a requirement to imagine something.
Leonardo da Vinci imagined vehicles that would allow man to fly hundreds of years before they were actually created, and he didn't even have all the fantastical things like magic and monsters that folks on Golarion have to base their imagining things on - proving you're not actually concerned about what is possible for a Golarion-born character to imagine when you bring in this "don't use modern knowledge" thing. You don't even know what actually is modern knowledge, and what is just the Tiffany Problem tricking you.
breithauptcian wrote: Point of order: the illusion spells being discussed don't have targets at all. So yes, the spell affects the caster, all of the allies, and all of the enemies, and all of the bystanders for that matter. I am already aware of what the rules say, thank you - I simply do not believe they are intending for the caster of an illusion to ever be in a position to have to disbelieve it.
I say that because the language of disbelief is general, rather than specifically addressing the caster, which could mean it was written assuming that each illusion spell would be specific about how it didn't affect the caster in the same way because what not having to disbelieve would result in can differ from one effect to another and might need details - and then the illusion spells when written assumed all the needed information was in the general rules.
I know to some that will sound outlandish, but to me when comparing the possibile explanations for the current RAW state and having either this easy kind of oversight or a deliberate case of making it possible for a character to fail to disbelieve their own illusion, I find it far more likely that there's an error than the other explanation being true.
shroudb wrote: you do understand the fundamental difference of a mirror and a wall. Right? You're missing the point.
The point is that imagining a wall that is opaque from one angle and transparent from another does not require knowledge of any particular thing at all - and the illusory object spell doesn't make a requirement that you've actually heard of the object before either.
thenobledrake wrote: The point is that imagining a wall that is opaque from one angle and transparent from another does not require knowledge of any particular thing at all - and the illusory object spell doesn't make a requirement that you've actually heard of the object before either. my point was exactly that:
if you dont need to know what you are creating, or how it works, what's stopping you from imagining space shuttles and quantum drives?
the "limit" of what you can imagine or not is exactly what the GM, any GM, sets. For some groups this limit will undoubtely be different than other groups, so do not expect consistency for doing stuff like that with illusions across the tables. Even more so for "official" tables like PFS.
shroudb wrote: thenobledrake wrote: The point is that imagining a wall that is opaque from one angle and transparent from another does not require knowledge of any particular thing at all - and the illusory object spell doesn't make a requirement that you've actually heard of the object before either. my point was exactly that:
if you dont need to know what you are creating, or how it works, what's stopping you from imagining space shuttles and quantum drives?
the "limit" of what you can imagine or not is exactly what the GM, any GM, sets. For some groups this limit will undoubtely be different than other groups, so do not expect consistency for doing stuff like that with illusions across the tables. Even more so for "official" tables like PFS. It's a visual illusion. You just need to be able to visualize it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: if you dont need to know what you are creating, or how it works, what's stopping you from imagining space shuttles and quantum drives? Nothing, just as nothing should - especially because those are actual things that exist in the world of Golarion.
I'm confused why you think there is even a reason to stop a caster of illusory object from making illusions of these things - even the heightened version of the spell won't actually make an illusion real, so the difference between imagining a space shuttle and casting an illusion of it or just making the illusion a rock of the same shape is just that one can make noises and smells - you can't fly your illusory space shuttle any better than you could fly your illusory rock.
Any limit applied to what a character can imagine is inherently nonsensical - it's imaginary, it doesn't have to make sense, and statements about what technological era the person is in having any bearing at all on what can be imagined are - like most cases of people being concerned about trying to prevent meta-gaming - meta-gaming by basing what a character can do exclusively on what players know.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider that an Illusionist (caster of an illusion) should be able to be automatically considered to have disbelieved the illusion that they created. However, I also consider it completely viable that they see/sense the illusion they have created, so they can, for instance better maintain it. Meaning that they sense/see it at least a spectral image of it. That means I can see it providing some concealment to creatures the on the other side of it, as mentioned in the disbelief rules.
I have trouble with the idea of allies automatically being able to disbelieve the illusion, but I don't necessarily have an issue with them having a circumstance bonus to disbelieve it, especially if they are familiar with the caster's past illusions. (potentially even to the tune of being treated as if the caster aided their allies on the disbelief save)
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
First edition had the following rule, which seems fine to import as a house rule with little-to-no modification:
Quote: 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. It would be reasonable to say the caster has such proof upon casting, and perhaps likewise with anyone who recognizes the spell as it's casted (or they should at least be given a circumstance bonus to disbelieve). The caster can let allies know that it's an illusion to grant them the bonus but would want to do so without also informing enemies.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Re: whether someone could create an illusion of a semi-see-through wall: Just because one can imagine something doesn't mean it could actually exist.
Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. As GM I would not allow illusions of objects with impossible optical properties like that.
'Invisible in one direction, looks like a regular wall in the other direction' is also impossible. The two-way mirror trick only works in real life when the room the observer is looking into is much more brightly lit than the one the person being spied on is standing in.
Matthew Downie wrote: Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. You are arguing against your own contrived situation. I believe that is also known as a "straw man". Nobody is arguing for the ability to use illusions as you describe, not by a long shot.
Matthew Downie wrote: Re: whether someone could create an illusion of a semi-see-through wall: Just because one can imagine something doesn't mean it could actually exist. It doesn't "actually exist", it's an illusion.
Unless you can find me a rules entry that specifically limits the illusions a character can make to things which they know to be real, I'm afraid that "an object we can see out, but they can't see in" is right there with "a statue of a gargaputus, the turtle-shelled winged giraffe monster I've just thought up" on the list of things which are totally possible (albeit unlikely for a player to actually think up on the spot).
Tarpeius wrote: First edition had the following rule, which seems fine to import as a house rule with little-to-no modification:
Quote: 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. It would be reasonable to say the caster has such proof upon casting, and perhaps likewise with anyone who recognizes the spell as it's casted (or they should at least be given a circumstance bonus to disbelieve). The caster can let allies know that it's an illusion to grant them the bonus but would want to do so without also informing enemies.
That rule harkens back to even earlier editions, so I think Paizo (especially Gygaxians like Mona & Jacobs) intentionally withdrew it from this edition. Previous editions also had vague rules re: illusions and table variance made even PFS Illusionists undesirable (according to old gripes I'd read).
I like the more rigorous yet smoother nature of PF2 illusions where often you only save if you engage with the illusion. And if you do save, the bonus you pass to your peers is them being able to save despite not having engaged yet. Or even repeatedly saving to see through it since they trust you or something's obviously illusory about it.
For example, rock rolls through wall. Was it an illusion of a wall? Or wait, was it the rock? Or in this crazy world was it the ghost of a Living Boulder (so I guess an Unliving Boulder)? Or maybe was the event implanted and not visible to anybody else? I think it's reasonable it takes some Seeking or thinking (saving) to suss out the situation.
I'd allow the Aid action though, maybe even on the aiding PC's turn (so no Readying needed), assuming it's not "the Gnome that cried illusions" up to his shenanigans again.
As for this hiccup re: the caster, I can't see the person forming the image and then bringing it into existence somehow thinking he has Wish powers to make it really so. I lean toward the conclusion that Paizo hadn't felt they needed to address casters since it'd be too obvious to consider mentioning.
Unfortunately that still doesn't address whether the caster can see through it or how well, yet Paizo seems to have intentionally deferred to GMs re: seeing through known illusions. It's likely because there can and will be so many variants of illusions & lighting that rules couldn't capture them all. Nor could a comment thread, I suppose.
mrspaghetti wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. You are arguing against your own contrived situation. I believe that is also known as a "straw man". Nobody is arguing for the ability to use illusions as you describe, not by a long shot. Uh, the situation described was about a wall that only the caster's enemy could see, which is almost exactly the same thing.
Super Zero wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. You are arguing against your own contrived situation. I believe that is also known as a "straw man". Nobody is arguing for the ability to use illusions as you describe, not by a long shot. Uh, the situation described was about a wall that only the caster's enemy could see, which is almost exactly the same thing. "smoke that only orcs can see" is not remotely the same as an illusion that looks different from different positions.
mrspaghetti wrote: Super Zero wrote: mrspaghetti wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. You are arguing against your own contrived situation. I believe that is also known as a "straw man". Nobody is arguing for the ability to use illusions as you describe, not by a long shot. Uh, the situation described was about a wall that only the caster's enemy could see, which is almost exactly the same thing. "smoke that only orcs can see" is not remotely the same as an illusion that looks different from different positions. If one opens up the illusory object to all things imaginable, then yes they're in the same sphere. The "Orc" element might be a bit much (barring extensive differences in Orc-eye physiology), but how about Darkvision, low-light vision, or normal vision?
People with Darkvision can see the object (so have their vision blocked) while other cannot (so see through it). Sounds viable.*
I'd rather stick to the basics of the character thinking up an object they can name, without giving it ad hoc traits that open cans of wormy rules. So a mirror would be fine, maybe even a one-way mirror if the PC understands how the backing for such works (and which doesn't work that well given the standard lighting used by adventurers). But some large rock that happens to work far better than any one-way mirror? That seems in the realm of magical phenomena rather than "objects".
*I'm reminded of a climactic battle where the BBGs had cast Invisibility on a tapestry in front of themselves. So the party Cleric w/ True Seeing up couldn't see them, but everybody else could see each other. He saw "too" well. Funnily enough, one BBG had the Cleric's father's face on as an illusion, one which fooled everybody else who then relayed this to him. Good times.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote: Suppose a wizard (while fighting some orcs) wanted to create an illusion of the room being filled with opaque black smoke that only orcs can see, so all his enemies are instantly completely blind while his party are completely unaffected. As GM I would not allow illusions of objects with impossible optical properties like that. An illusion exclusively affecting chosen viewers would not be a visual illusion out in the world but a magical hallucination, or a "phantasm" in D&D/PF parlance. Compare, e.g., Illusory Object with Phantasmal Treasure. The former has the visual trait, while the latter has the mental trait. A thing that is transparent from one angle but not another is not a phantasm.
Castilliano wrote: If one opens up the illusory object to all things imaginable That's not quite right. What was being proposed further up the thread is that an illusion should be able to look like whatever can be imagined. That is radically different than making an illusion that is different to viewers based on their physical or other characteristics, e.g., Medium creatures see this and Large see something else, or those with a mole on their rear-end in the shape of Madagascar can't see it but those with horns can. That would be an absurd position to advocate, and it is not being advocated, it is only being contrived here so that it can be argued against, rather than the actual scenario discussed at the top of the thread. Straw man.
Castilliano wrote: , then yes they're in the same sphere. The "Orc" element might be a bit much (barring extensive differences in Orc-eye physiology), but how about Darkvision, low-light vision, or normal vision?
People with Darkvision can see the object (so have their vision blocked) while other cannot (so see through it). Sounds viable.*
No, it doesn't.
Castilliano wrote: I'd rather stick to the basics of the character thinking up an object they can name, without giving it ad hoc traits that open cans of wormy rules. So a mirror would be fine, maybe even a one-way mirror if the PC understands how the backing for such works (and which doesn't work that well given the standard lighting used by adventurers). But some large rock that happens to work far better than any one-way mirror? That seems in the realm of magical phenomena rather than "objects".
*I'm reminded of a climactic battle where the BBGs had cast Invisibility on a tapestry in front of themselves. So the party Cleric w/ True Seeing up couldn't see them, but everybody else could see each other. He saw "too" well. Funnily enough, one BBG had the Cleric's father's face on as an illusion, one which fooled everybody else who then relayed this to him....
That's not how I would rule True Seeing to work. If you want to start another thread about that I'd be happy to contribute to it.
Based on the discussion thus far, I would not rule as my GM did. Instead I'd rule that, for visual illusions:
1) The caster gets an auto-disbelief with no need to Seek or Interact, and
2) Everyone else needs to save
3) I would count the caster's "tip off" to her friends as an Aid check, which either auto-succeeds or crit succeeds based on the circumstances. I.e., if there was a pre-arranged code word shouted out during casting which everyone in the party knew about, that's a crit success to Aid for all of them. Lack of a similar pre-arranged signal would require the caster to expend a separate action alerting her allies and would be just an ordinary Aid success for them
I wouldn't allow transparency from one angle but not another as part of the casting; i.e., everyone sees the illusion the same way if they haven't saved, and it is transparent to them if they have successfully saved. Note that this could still result in a situation where the caster and her party can see through an illusory wall while their enemies can't, but only as a result of the former saving while the latter don't.
I prefer to lay the burden upon the caster to make the illusion work as she wants it to. For example, if she creates an illusory Wall of Stone and then realizes the next round that her friends can't shoot through it, then that's too bad for her. If she instead makes illusory iron bars spaced closely enough to prevent the enemy from passing but widely-spaced enough to allow her allies' arrows, then good for her. Illusions allow tremendous creativity but also require some thought to be effective.
Complexity of illusions will be practically limited by the time a character has during their turn. They can only describe so much to the GM without filibustering the rest of the party. I would allow permanent illusions cast during downtime to get downright psychedelic though (e.g., 8th level Illusory Scene).
|
