Insofar as I'm aware, an illusory creature can use (or rather mimic, I should say) the base creature's abilities. Depending on the ability, the actual effects may be limited, need to be arbitrated by the GM, or wholly ineffectual (it being an immaterial illusion and all). For example, an illusory archer can fire illusory arrows dealing mental damage. An illusory dragon might breath fire over several targets, dealing mental damage.
If my witch cast illusory creature to create an illusion of herself, could she use the evil eye hex, then have the illusory clone use evil eye on another target each round?
My thinking is that the once per round hex limitations wouldn't apply here any more than a dragon's breath weapon recharge rate would apply to the dragon's illusion of a fire breathing dragon and, unlike a breath weapon, evil eye is not a physical effect and so wouldn't be much impacted by being an immaterial illusion.
Damage only effects, eh? Can you point out the part of the spell that limits it to only damaging effects?
How about an illusory evoker using flaming sphere, fireball, or lightning bolt then? Or an alchemist lobbing bombs? Or a dragon using its breath weapon?
Are there any limitations to how many targets can be effected by an illusory creature's damaging effects?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If the illusory creature hits with a Strike, the target takes mental damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This is a mental effect. The illusion's Strikes are nonlethal.":full stop, no other mention of damage or effect from it's attacks.
There is NO stipulation I can see that allows abilities to work, just strikes. No dragon breath, no spells, ect. Now any flavor of strike works.
EDIT: ninja'd by a few seconds. ;)
I agree the illusion can only strike one target, but those Strikes can certainly appear to be breath weapons, spells or anything else. I agree with @cavernshark as to those also being more likely to grant free disbelief saves the weirder they are."If the illusory creature hits with a Strike, the target takes mental damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This is a mental effect. The illusion's Strikes are nonlethal.":full stop, no other mention of damage or effect from it's attacks.
There is NO stipulation I can see that allows abilities to work, just strikes. No dragon breath, no spells, ect. Now any flavor of strike works.
EDIT: ninja'd by a few seconds. ;)
That's questionable, IMO, as it's explicitly a strike and is never suggested that it's not a physical strike: if it was meant to work with spells, breath weapons, ect I think when it spoke of the dragon attacking in the example "illusory Large dragon deals only 5 damage" it would have been much better to say "illusory Large dragons breath deals only 5 damage". I just don't see an inference for non-physical non-strike looking attacks.
If you get into spells, breathes, ect then you run into the questions on why you can't attack multiple creatures with a strike as the illusion could be covering multiple creatures so why is only one getting hit? What it the justification to only strike one? Single physical strikes are simple as it's JUST a creature actually getting hit with the illusion, not multiple people getting touched by the illusion but only one taking damage.
If you would let an illusory dragon breath flames into the air, and people standing nearby could see the flames, hear the rush of hot air, feel the heat, then why couldn't the dragon convince those same people that they get burned when its not just throwing it up in the air, but over them?
If you would let an illusory dragon breath flames into the air
I wouldn't allow it with illusory creature: IMO, you can make the creature do mundane things not magical things. It never says it can emulate other abilities or spells, even if it's JUST for special affects and not targeting someone.
So a dragon could fly and swat you with a tail or wings but it can't cast spells or breathe. The spell is just making an illusion of a creature, not a spell or special ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This spell is pretty incomplete and busted. Do the two attacks suffer MAP? Do they have a range limitation, beyond GM fiat giving disbelief checks? What's the movement speed of the illusion, can it just teleport around?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you would let an illusory dragon breath flames into the air, and people standing nearby could see the flames, hear the rush of hot air, feel the heat, then why couldn't the dragon convince those same people that they get burned when its not just throwing it up in the air, but over them?
Because that's what the spell says. You don't summon a dragon, you create al illusory effect that resembles a dragon, which is not a minion, and not even an actual creature. The only way this effect can interact with others - in terms of hostile actions - is just via Strikes.
If you get into spells, breathes, ect then you run into the questions on why you can't attack multiple creatures with a strike as the illusion could be covering multiple creatures so why is only one getting hit? What it the justification to only strike one? Single physical strikes are simple as it's JUST a creature actually getting hit with the illusion, not multiple people getting touched by the illusion but only one taking damage.
I don't think this has any real relevance in terms of actual mechanics, but it would be just a way to describe what's happening in RP.
Mechanically: the illusion Strikes a target for 5 mental damage. No other enemy is affected. Because of the very low damage compared to the expectations, the GM allows the target a free disbelieve roll. The others, however, don't.
RP: the enemies, all of which believe the dragon in front of them is real, are invested by a wave of illusory fire. All cower, instinctively dodging the heat, but one, who screams while enveloped in a cape of scorching flam- until he realizes he's not.
What happens in terms of game mechanics and the narrative used to describe it do not need to perfectly match. This is true both ways: do not expect that something that is described in a certain way (i.e. the illusory dragon spouting flames in the air simply as a way of "looking real") has a direct correlation in terms of game mechanics (Illusory Creature emulating abilities beside Strikes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This spell is pretty incomplete and busted. Do the two attacks suffer MAP? Do they have a range limitation, beyond GM fiat giving disbelief checks? What's the movement speed of the illusion, can it just teleport around?
I was wondering about the Strike MAP as well--specifically whether or not an illusion could ignore them since they are a spell effect and not a creature, and since the spell doesnt have the Attack trait.
Then I realized that the Strike action itself has the Attack trait. Ergo, I believe the illusion must contend with the penalty. If it used an (illusory) agile weapon, I would apply a reduced penalty.
Because the spell doesn't have the Attack trait, the illusion's attacks don't impact the caster's MAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This spell is pretty incomplete and busted. Do the two attacks suffer MAP? Do they have a range limitation, beyond GM fiat giving disbelief checks? What's the movement speed of the illusion, can it just teleport around?
I ran it as the illusion itself suffers MAP on its own, the range of all effects of the illusion is the range of the spell (ie, an illusory archer can shoot at anything within the range of the spell, but not a step past that), and that movement could be anywhere within the range as well - with the caveat that unreasonable movement might provoke a foe to scrutinize the creature further, assuming they could close to range for seek.
Its a fantastically powerful spell, but thats really all illusions this edition since they are so limited in ways to disbelieve them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose my illusions will all be air elemetals hurling lightning down from 400 feet in the air.
Hard to interact or shoot back to successfully pop the illusion that way.
Suppose my illusions will all be air elemetals hurling lightning down from 400 feet in the air.
I don't see how they can make non-strike attacks: ie, no mention of attacks that look like spells and/or special abilities. Secondly, I don't see how area affect attacks could be used [lightning bolt] as a strike as it could be hitting multiple creatures.
Suppose my illusions will all be air elemetals hurling lightning down from 400 feet in the air.I don't see how they can make non-strike attacks: ie, no mention of attacks that look like spells and/or special abilities. Secondly, I don't see how area affect attacks could be used [lightning bolt] as a strike as it could be hitting multiple creatures.
Living Thunderclaps, an actual example of a printed creature, can make Lightning Bolt Strikes.
Ravingdorks example is an actual thing - and totally consistent with the rules as printed.
Suppose my illusions will all be air elemetals hurling lightning down from 400 feet in the air.I don't see how they can make non-strike attacks: ie, no mention of attacks that look like spells and/or special abilities. Secondly, I don't see how area affect attacks could be used [lightning bolt] as a strike as it could be hitting multiple creatures.Living Thunderclaps, an actual example of a printed creature, can make Lightning Bolt Strikes.
Ravingdorks example is an actual thing - and totally consistent with the rules as printed.
Sure, things under melee and ranged for monsters are Strikes: So a 50' ranged 'Lightning Bolt Strike' that targets one creature works. A 'Lightning Bolt' area attack spell doesn't. We HAVE to be clear on the terminology: Adding or leaving the word Strike matters.
Now talking about a strike with a -14 to the roll [nothing gets rid of ranged penalties just like it doesn't get rid of MAP] didn't seem like a viable strategy but now that I look at it, it's not a viable strategy with a 120' lightning bolt either. :P
Suppose my illusions will all be air elemetals hurling lightning down from 400 feet in the air.I don't see how they can make non-strike attacks: ie, no mention of attacks that look like spells and/or special abilities. Secondly, I don't see how area affect attacks could be used [lightning bolt] as a strike as it could be hitting multiple creatures.Living Thunderclaps, an actual example of a printed creature, can make Lightning Bolt Strikes.
Ravingdorks example is an actual thing - and totally consistent with the rules as printed.
Sure, things under melee and ranged for monsters are Strikes: So a 50' ranged 'Lightning Bolt Strike' that targets one creature works. A 'Lightning Bolt' area attack spell doesn't. We HAVE to be clear on the terminology: Adding or leaving the word Strike matters.
Now talking about a strike with a -14 to the roll [nothing gets rid of ranged penalties just like it doesn't get rid of MAP] didn't seem like a viable strategy but now that I look at it, it's not a viable strategy with a 120' lightning bolt either. :P
Eh, its an illusion of a creature similar to, but not identical to, one in the Bestiary, that doesn't have range limitations?
I personally would not apply specific weapon or stat traits from other profiles, and not noted inside the Illusory creature rules. No benefits from Agile, but also not strictly limited to normal ranges either imo.
When using an illusory creature, a Strike is a Strike and the spell defines modifiers such as attack - its a spell attack roll, not modified by anything that isn't applicable to "Strikes" in general, like MAP. That Strike is limited in the ways defined in the spell - it can affect weaknesses, but not in ways that shut down regeneration, etc. The range is the range of the spell, and how you describe that is up to the player.
When using an illusory creature, a Strike is a Strike and the spell defines modifiers such as attack - its a spell attack roll, not modified by anything that isn't applicable to "Strikes" in general, like MAP. That Strike is limited in the ways defined in the spell - it can affect weaknesses, but not in ways that shut down regeneration, etc. The range is the range of the spell, and how you describe that is up to the player.
Range increment IS something that is applicable to ranged strikes as much as MAP does. The illusory creature makes an attack roll to Strike [using your spell roll] and applies everything you would for a Strike [it can even flank]. If it attacks in melee, it's a melee Strike and if it attacks at ranged, it's a ranged Strike. I don't know of any ranged Strike that doesn't have a range increment.
Range
Source Bestiary pg. 17
"These attacks will either list a finite range or a range increment, which follows the normal rules for range increments."
I mean, it you ignore range increments then why not just ignore reach and hit with your warhammer from 400' away, meaning you can flank that far... Heck, 400' ranged melee bite for the win I guess.
Perhaps all my illusory creatures are snipers with Far Shot. :P
Range from where? The creature that isn't really there?
You're emulating a weapon, either a physical one or a natural one: in doing do, you emulate the range.
Strike: "You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)." Note it's an "attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack" and for targeting "within range (for a ranged attack)". The spell gives no range for the Strikes, so I don't see why it's not based on the "weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack".
If you think it just had the range of the spell, then what is the reach of melee strikes? 500' away? If not, how is it different from range?
If not, you could put an illusory creature 500' behind you and attack someone 400' in front of you for a range of 1000' which, IMO, would run afoul of the 'too good to be true' mention for ambiguous rules.
Perhaps all my illusory creatures are snipers with Far Shot. :P
They could be flurry rangers but they's still use normal MAPs... Or they could be centaurs but still have the same reach :P
Your interpretation makes sense to me, graystone, but people still appreciate it when others backup their claims with rules references and the like.
Your interpretation makes sense to me, graystone, but people still appreciate it when others backup their claims with rules references and the like.
Mine is that every ranged Strike I've ever seen has a range increment attached to it and Strikes are an "attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)." It's based on your weapon or unarmed attack: without that basis, you can't figure out range as it's NOT stated out for anything but damage.
Really, a LOT is unmentioned in the spell: DO you take concealment/cover from you, the illusion or both? Line of sight from you or the illusion for the Strike? Does it trigger an attack of opportunity for reloading? Do we treat it like a spell or a creature?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on people, why would the spell allow ranged Strikes and not say so? The spell creates an illusion that takes the shape of a creature. It doesn't have weapons, it doesn't have spells, it doesn't have other abilities apart from attacking nearby creatures. The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?
The shape your illusion take is irrelevant: you don't get to pick a creature from the Bestiary and use their abilities, weapon attacks, spells and what not. This is not PF1 Shadow Conjuration. Do you want to use it to create the illusion of an archer? Go for it, pretend it's shooting to make it realistic so that it doesn't trigger disbelief checks, but unless you are point-blank, it doesn't Strike anyone, because it has no actual bow to shoot from.
As per rules backing it up: there are none. There are no rules saying that the illusion has weapons or that it inherits the range, reach, or abilities of the creature it resembles. Since it has no weapons, it can only attack with unarmed strikes, thus the melee Strikes. Sure, you can always move the illusion within the 500ft and, essentially, Strike anyone within the area, but it comes with its limitations in terms of suspension of disbelief.
The reason why I think the spell cannot damage anyone within the 500ft radius area without actually moving the illusion is because the illusion has a well defined Size and a well defined position (since it can flank). This means that it is limited to a very specific space at any given time, it doesn't stretch across the 500ft radius area, and can therefore only interact with its surroundings.
If this weren't the case, and you accepted the possibility of an illusory creature shooting an illusory arrow 1000ft away, then you would have to accept the possibility of an illusory creature with an illusory 1000ft long polearm flanking from 1000ft away. Which is clearly (I hope) absurd.
Come on people, why would the spell allow ranged Strikes and not say so? The spell creates an illusion that takes the shape of a creature. It doesn't have weapons, it doesn't have spells, it doesn't have other abilities apart from attacking nearby creatures. The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?
The shape your illusion take is irrelevant: you don't get to pick a creature from the Bestiary and use their abilities, weapon attacks, spells and what not. This is not PF1 Shadow Conjuration. Do you want to use it to create the illusion of an archer? Go for it, pretend it's shooting to make it realistic so that it doesn't trigger disbelief checks, but unless you are point-blank, it doesn't Strike anyone, because it has no actual bow to shoot from.
As per rules backing it up: there are none. There are no rules saying that the illusion has weapons or that it inherits the range, reach, or abilities of the creature it resembles. Since it has no weapons, it can only attack with unarmed strikes, thus the melee Strikes. Sure, you can always move the illusion within the 500ft and, essentially, Strike anyone within the area, but it comes with its limitations in terms of suspension of disbelief.
The reason why I think the spell cannot damage anyone within 500ft without actually moving the illusion is because the illusion has a well defined Size. This means that it is limited to a very specific space at any given time, it doesn't stretch across 500ft, and can therefore only interact with its surroundings.
Are you indicating that the illusion can only make Melee Strikes?
Strikes can be melee or ranged (and there are even spell Strikes). Illusory creature does not limit you to a particular kind of Strike insofar as I can tell.
|
|
Are you indicating that the illusion can only make Melee Strikes?
Strikes can be melee or ranged (and there are even spell Strikes). Illusory creature does not limit you to a particular kind of Strike insofar as I can tell.
Strikes can be melee or ranged depending on the weapon used. The illusion has no weapon. The default for no weapon is unarmed Strikes. Unarmed Strikes are melee.
If this weren't the case, and you accepted the possibility of an illusory creature shooting an illusory arrow 1000ft away, then you would have to accept the possibility of an illusory creature with an illusory 1000ft long polearm flanking from 1000ft away. Which is clearly (I hope) absurd.
I dunno. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
there is no Strike
"If the illusory creature hits with a Strike, the target takes mental damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier." Note the capital in Strike, meaning it DOES INDEED mean the action Strike.
The spell requires a spell attack roll
"It uses your spell attack roll for attack rolls and your spell DC for its AC." No, it uses your spell roll, but it's still an attack roll for it: it calls it out.
it would be reasonable for MAP to apply
Sure, but is it explicitly written out? The thing is, the only thing that makes it an attack is it being a Strike: if you claim it's not a strike, there is no evidence it's an attack and it no longer has the attack trait...
That spell has a range, which is 500 feet.
Sure, you can put that illusory creature anywhere within 500' and control it... Not seeing that range attached to the attack though.
The spell is accompanied by an illusion, which is a product of the caster's imagination and which may or may not resemble a real creature. The damage appears to be caused by the illusion, in whatever way the caster decides. If this figment of the caster's imagination is successfully "hit" with an attack of some kind, the spell ends.
So it can make 1000' melee attacks because the caster imagines it, meaning it can flank that far???
The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?
No matter how you look at it, you are allowed to pick it's size based on the level of the spell and with size increases comes extended reach so if nothing else, you'd get that.
|
|
I dunno. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Based on what? The alternative is to completely make up the clause that the illusion comes equipped with any illusory weaponry you want, including 1000ft long polearms able to flank with an ally at the opposite side of the 500ft radius area. As I said, the creature has a well defined Size and position, it can't affect targets anywhere/everywhere in the area.
The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?No matter how you look at it, you are allowed to pick it's size based on the level of the spell and with size increases comes extended reach so if nothing else, you'd get that.
And even that (the increase of reach with Size) it's not a given. I still don't know if a Large bipedal animal companion gets 10ft reach or not (yes because it's usually the case for Large bipedal creatures? No because the animal companion rules don't explicitly say so?), how can I say whether a Large illusory bipedal creature gets it? This game is a mess.
And even that (the increase of reach with Size) it's not a given. I still don't know if a Large bipedal animal companion gets 10ft reach or not (yes because it's usually the case for Large bipedal creatures? No because the animal companion rules don't explicitly say so?), how can I say whether a Large illusory bipedal creature gets it? This game is a mess.
That isn't an issue with the spell though: IMO, you'd get the same reach as the creature emulated so you'd use whatever you rules for the creature. IMO, this is something you'd have to sort out before you even get to the spell.
The defaults are "tall creatures (most bipeds) and long creatures (most quadrupeds)", so a Large bipedal creatures would use the Tall column meaning a 10' reach unless there is a listed exception.
I dunno. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.Based on what? The alternative is to completely make up the clause that the illusion comes equipped with any illusory weaponry you want, including 1000ft long polearms able to flank with an ally at the opposite side of the 500ft radius area. As I said, the creature has a well defined Size and position, it can't affect targets anywhere/everywhere in the area.
I think you are missing the point. It is totally fabricated effect based on the imagination of the caster. It is an illusion. So yes all things things are possible.
There is a clause in the spell about it: the GM granting a disbelive perception check as a free action.
A 1000ft polearm would simply be not allowed by the GM - citing the size limits of the illusion. 10 ft of reach is reasonable. For 15ft of reach the GM might allow a free disbelieve check, or not - depending if 15ft reach is considered reasonably possible for the illusion.
A 1000ft shot by an ilusionary archer would cause a free disbelieve check, as the target would think it to be an impossible shot.
You are supposed to use some interpretation when applying rules. Yes this means the rules are open. But that is a strength of the game, not a problem. The limit is your imagination, and the story you can sell to your GM.
The alternative is to completely make up the clause that the illusion comes equipped with any illusory weaponry you want, including 1000ft long polearms able to flank with an ally at the opposite side of the 500ft radius area. As I said, the creature has a well defined Size and position, it can't affect targets anywhere/everywhere in the area.
That's a rather disingenuous claim. I never claimed you could use this spell to make melee attacks from a thousand feet away. Please don't act like I did.
The alternative to your alternative is to have the spell only ever allow for naked creatures and characters. Seeing as it allows you to make Deception or Perform checks to emulate specific creatures and characters, something that wouldn't be worthwhile if you had to explain the nudity, I'm inclined to believe that the illusion can be fully equipped...ahem...with armor, or arrows, or whatever else is appropriate to the illusion in question.
Also, you do know that reach weapon trait only gives you an extra 5 feet, despite the size of the weapon, right?
Well, we know the spell allows for melee weapons: "For example, if the illusion wields a warhammer and attacks a creature resistant to bludgeoning damage, the creature would take less mental damage."
Also, you do know that reach weapon trait only gives you an extra 5 feet, despite the size of the weapon, right?
The point some where claiming was that the actual traits of the weapon, like range, don't matter: you can just attack within the spells range, hence you remove the range/reach limits for BOTH melee and ranged, weapons or unarmed attacks and weapon and natural reach as a natural consequence. So even if you can't make a 1000' long weapon, you'd be able to extend a 990' limb with a reach weapon for the exact same affect.
Damage only effects, eh? Can you point out the part of the spell that limits it to only damaging effects?
How about an illusory evoker using flaming sphere, fireball, or lightning bolt then? Or an alchemist lobbing bombs? Or a dragon using its breath weapon?
Are there any limitations to how many targets can be effected by an illusory creature's damaging effects?
The target of the illusion is not defined in the spell. Whether just a single target or multiple at a time.
There are only rules for the illusion to do damage are by making attacks. But there are no limits on the number or types of attacks that can be made.
There are spell attacks, there are multiple target melee attacks, there are even multiple target spell attacks like the Black Tentacles.
So an illusionary barbarian could use the Swipe Feat and hit 2 adjacent targets.
An ilusionary wizard could cast Ray of Frost and hit a target at range.
I don't see why an illusionary dragon could not breath fire and use the spell attack to potentially hit several targets with it.
I don't see that the targets would automatically disbelive because they were hit by an attack, not failed to dodge with a reflex save. That sort of knowledge is not available to the characters in the game.
But yes there is a fair bit of interpretation here.
1) Some GMs will be firm on single target attacks only by an illusion
2) Some GMs will not allow effects that are normally allowed a saving throw to be imitated by a spell attack.
I disagree. Further neither limitation is necessary. Keep it in perspective here - illusions do 1d4 + stat damage. Half of which returns when you do eventually disbelieve. Game breaking it is not. Let the illusionist have their fun.
Illusions are about providing a distraction for a short while. Let them work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The target of the illusion is not defined in the spell
Not true. Strike: "You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)" and "If the illusory creature hits with a Strike, the target takes mental damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier." Target 100% defined. You can't inflict damage any other way.
But there are no limits on the number or types of attacks that can be made.
It can make the EXACT SAME attack as you PC can make with a Strike. So it can only it only targets an unlimited number of creatures with an unlimited type of attacks if you also allow PC's to do the same with their mundane weapon and unarmed Strike attacks...
The target of the illusion is not defined in the spellNot true. Strike: "You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)" and "If the illusory creature hits with a Strike, the target takes mental damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier." Target 100% defined. You can't inflict damage any other way.
Good points. But I'm going to push this a bit more.
There is no limit on the number of Strikes or attacks in Illusionary Creature only consequences if they are believable.
Again Swipe is a maneuver that is one Strike against two targets.
But there are no limits on the number or types of attacks that can be made.It can make the EXACT SAME attack as you PC can make with a Strike. So it can only it only targets an unlimited number of creatures with an unlimited type of attacks if you also allow PC's to do the same with their mundane weapon and unarmed Strike attacks...
The spell states that the illusion can attack, has two actions. It lists the consequnces of a successful Strike. You are adding extra limitations here.
There are Strikes that are multitarget.There are several spells that use a spell attack to make a Strike. Like Spiritual Weapon, and Draconic Barrage.
Your definition of Strike is not as tight as you might think. While I appreciate the priority of specific versus general, you are back fitting Strike over Illusionary Creature, when Strike is a possible outcome of the Illusion the particulars of which are limited only by the open ended nature of the Illusion. Further it is obvious that the illusion is not actually a real Strike, just the image of one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are abilities that include Strikes (in various forms). Those abilities are not Strikes themselves, nor does the spell appear to grant such abilities to the creature.
The spell lets the creature make Strikes. That's it. It doesn't say the creature can do any activity which contains a Strike. To allow the spell every ability in the game that contains a Strike as a subordinate action goes beyond the straightforward reading IMO plus gives the spell a ridiculous amount of power & utility for its level. See Fighter feats for examples.
If you want your creature to teleport around anywhere within spell range, there's nothing stopping it. Why are you worried about whether it can only make faux melee Strikes vs faux ranged Strikes vs faux spell attacks or anything else?
Because the ONLY way to attack is Strike maybe? You now, the rules in the spell...
Yes, there are Strikes, but it is the caster making them. The caster can do this anywhere he wants to within the range of the spell because he can put (and move) the illusory creature anywhere he wants within the range of the spell.
No they aren't: "In combat, the illusion can use 2 actions per turn, which it uses when you Sustain the Spell. It uses your spell attack roll for attack rolls and your spell DC for its AC." The caster spends an action and it gains 2 of it's own actions tand with those actions it can attack.
There is no limit on the number of Strikes or attacks in Illusionary Creature only consequences if they are believable.
You are wrong. "In combat, the illusion can use 2 actions per turn, which it uses when you Sustain the Spell.": so it only has TWO actions. Strike has an action cost of 1: so you can only make 2 strikes.
Again Swipe is a maneuver that is one Strike against two targets.
Irrelevant as the can't use any attack other than Strike. The strikes in Swipe are subordinate actions: "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."
There are Strikes that are multitarget.
Not that I know: there are actions that include multiple Strikes or targets, but those DO NOT themselves count as Strikes. "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."
There are several spells that use a spell attack to make a Strike. Like Spiritual Weapon, and Draconic Barrage.
There are spells that include strikes, but those DO NOT themselves count as Strikes. "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."
Your definition of Strike is not as tight as you might think.
IMO, it IS when you read the subordinate action section.
Further it is obvious that the illusion is not actually a real Strike, just the image of one.
If something is a Strike, it STILL has to follow the rules for Strike: it's why it's its own action with codified rules. Illusory, IMO, doesn't factor in even a little on how the mechanics of Strike work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are abilities that include Strikes (in various forms). Those abilities are not Strikes themselves, nor does the spell appear to grant such abilities to the creature.
The spell lets the creature make Strikes. That's it. It doesn't say the creature can do any activity which contains a Strike. To allow the spell every ability in the game that contains a Strike as a subordinate action goes beyond the straightforward reading IMO plus gives the spell a ridiculous amount of power & utility for its level. See Fighter feats for examples.
No. The spell allows the creature to have actions and make attacks. But the creature is not defined beyond two actions, size and range. Neither are its attacks.
The spell further defines what damage a Strike on a target from an Illusionary creature does. It does not limit its attacks to normal weapon Strikes, or restrict the numbers of attacks. Rather it gives consequences if you try something ridiculous. The attacks themselves are not limited or defined further.There is no one to one correspondance between actions and attacks, nor is there between attacks and Strikes. It is the most common example but it is not required by the rules. It is certainly not required in this spell.
|
Your definition of Strike is not as tight as you might think. While I appreciate the priority of specific versus general, you are back fitting Strike over Illusionary Creature, when Strike is a possible outcome of the Illusion the particulars of which are limited only by the open ended nature of the Illusion. Further it is obvious that the illusion is not actually a real Strike, just the image of one.
The Strikes used by illusory creature are more defined than that. It's a Strike that deals damage as listed in the spell. They can do it twice.
No, you can't have a "Strike" that hits all enemies an infinite number of times. The effects are described in the spell.
The creature does not have the feats to do anything other than a normal Strike. It does not gain any of the creature's abilities either, only its appearance.
So it can only do normal Strikes.
The creature does not have the feats to do anything other than a normal Strike. It does not gain any of the creature's abilities either, only its appearance.
So it can only do normal Strikes.
That's the oddest rules argument I've seen.
It is an illusion of exactly what the caster imagines it to be.
Why would it need any feats? Its not even real.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I would run (haven't had to yet that I can recall) illusory creature is thus:
It can be whatever you want it to be. It can attack in whatever form you want it to attack in. If your illusory creature is a monk who unleashes a flurry of blows at a target, so be it, that is what the the illusion pantomimes.
But only one of those "Strikes" made in the "flurry" deals any damage.
If you want your illusion to make a ranged attack at an enemy, and want that range attack to look like it cast a spell at them, good to go. If that spell has multiple targets, or is say a Fireball (same goes for the aforementioned dragon and it's breath attack) you pick a target to take the hit, but everyone else who "interacts" with the 'spell' gets a roll to disbelieve.
If you want it to move, it can move as far as you want essentially for one of it's actions, but if it makes a move that is beyond the pale, say 200+ feet in a single "action" or flight for something that doesn't have an obvious way to fly, every opponent who witnessed that feat gets a roll to disbelieve because it did something that is frankly impossible.
I see equipment as being essential to the illusion, so weapon's are all apart of the spell. It would be weird if you could create a virtually perfect copy of some town guard you've seen, but he is buck naked without his weaponry or armor.
The creature does not have the feats to do anything other than a normal Strike. It does not gain any of the creature's abilities either, only its appearance.
So it can only do normal Strikes.That's the oddest rules argument I've seen.
It is an illusion of exactly what the caster imagines it to be.
Why would it need any feats? Its not even real.
An entity lacking abilities that an entity isn't listed as having is the strangest rules argument you've seen?
Well you allowing infinite Strikes strikes me as peculiar.Might as well break the illusion with some crazy ability that hits so many times that seeing through the illusion for half damage still = as much damage as you desire. That's absurd.
You can have the creature pretend to have other abilities, sure, but that doesn't it grant them. It doesn't get Improved Knockdown, Whirlwind Attack, nor the "wavy tentacles attack everything in reach multiple times until I get bored of rolling dice" ability. The illusory creature is its own thing, irregardless of what form it takes. And as far as one can tell from the spell, it only attacks via basic Strikes. (Whether one wishes to allow those Strikes to be disguised as other effects is a separate adjudication.)
An entity lacking abilities that an entity isn't listed as having is the strangest rules argument you've seen?
Well you allowing infinite Strikes strikes me as peculiar.
Might as well break the illusion with some crazy ability that hits so many times that seeing through the illusion for half damage still = as much damage as you desire. That's absurd.
Infinite strikes is pretty much going to outright break the illusion. It has to be somewhat believable or it is just not a credible illusion.
It is not as much damage as you desire. It is 1d4+stat which is just pitiful on the scale of damage. That requires a spell attack roll to work. Further is only half real and some comes back when you eventually make your save.
Yes creative players will push it a bit.
Yes it will actually require the GM to make a judgement call. How tragic.
Its not unbalanced. Its never going to do a lot of damage. Its firmly in cantrip range.
It's also not an infinite number of Strikes. At best, it would be limited by the number of targets within range.
...but if it makes a move that is beyond the pale, say 200+ feet in a single "action" or flight for something that doesn't have an obvious way to fly, every opponent who witnessed that feat gets a roll to disbelieve because it did something that is frankly impossible.
What exactly is impossible in a world of magic?
Breaking the illusion only reduces the damage to half, and would occur AFTER the event which caused disbelief. So make the creature take the umpteen Strikes (all timed to hit concurrently so no disbelief in mid-action), then so what if they disbelieve later? Heck, unconscious creatures won't be disbelieving anyway.
Zero cap on Strikes is zero cap on damage.
Everybody makes a shadow blob with hundreds of wiry tendrils that strike every enemy they can reach (which is everybody), dozens or scores per target all attacking in unison. Or a super-spiky cactus-beast launches thousands of slivers. (And there are examples of such creatures in anime.)
And seriously, the tone re: the tragedy of GMs making a call undermines yourself. Nobody's argued against GMs making calls, and if anything are suggesting to make the call preemptively. And pushing "a bit" sounds naive to me. Creative players will push it as much as possible if there are no guidelines. And if there's no reasonable and objective metric beforehand, the GM's not "making a call", so much as trying to put the worms back in the can.
Ravingdork, the amount of targets isn't the limit, since there's also no limit (in Gortle's interpretation) to how many times the creature can Strike per action. He is seriously saying that it's up to the imaginations of what are generally quite imaginative people. Sky's the limit. And as you note, in a world of magic (coupled with the fearful nightmares living in such a world would sow), what's going to trigger disbelief?