I know there's been a lot of threads about this spell but I still didn't see any elegant or definitive answer, and we now have the problem at our table.
For those who don't know, here's what Illusory object (level 1 spell) does:
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Duration 10 minutes
"You create an illusory visual image of a stationary object. The entire image must fit within the spell's area. The object appears to animate naturally, but it doesn't make sounds or generate smells. For example, water would appear to pour down an illusory waterfall, but it would be silent.
Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion."
If you heighten it to level 2, its duration is now one hour, with sound, smell and touch added.
So, here are a few things you can do with it RAW:
Beginner shenanigan: create a 40 foot-wide wall of stone in front of some opponents. Either they go around it (wasting one, perhaps two actions) or they try to disbelieve it (provided they have good reason to think it's an illusion) and lose at least one action, even on a success. So basically, with this basic use, you've wasted one or two actions on a group of opponents, even if they save. That's pretty wild for a first level spell.
Intermediate shenanigan: create a 40 foot-wide cage around melee opponents. Your ranged can still hit them without disbelieving, but the melee are now trapped. They'll waste all at least one action (hitting the cage, trying to disbelieve), probably more. Again, it's pretty potent.
Expert shenanigan: create a 40-foot-wide maze around the opponents. They'll waste at least two or three actions trying to get out.
There are lots of other uses as well (a dome to trap mages or archers...or to save one of your friends who's targeted; a sphere that blinds a flying opponent; not to mention the obvious RP uses like creating a cave, a waterfall, a bridge or whatever.
Anyway, here's my point: I'm mastering Age of Ashes, the players are level 5 and our bard is outshadowing every other caster with this spell. His background is all about illusions so I don't want to ban it (especially since I suggested some application for the spell myself) and I don't want to use the obvious answer of "hey, from now on all opponents you'll meet will also use this spell".
I'm just wondering how you're dealing with it at your table, or how you would deal with it should the occasion arise. I'm a bit uncomfortable to see a level 1 or 2 spell being more powerful than, say, resilient sphere (which is a pretty good spell on its own) or even mass slow.
We had an enemy trap our party in an illusory wall with this spell last week. Cost each of us an action (except the sorcerer who took 3) to disbelieve it. So I can definitely see where you're coming from. This was at somewhat low levels and the enemy was a Bard with a few goons, so we could probably have just stayed inside the wall and let them come in. But against a wizard who follows up with a fireball in the general vicinity, I can definitely see the issue.
As to how to handle it, everyone spending one (or more) actions to Seek the illusion and hopfully succeeding at the perception check seems to be RAW. So any "fix" would be a houserule.
You could try something like the Point Out action. As soon as one member of either party has disbelieved the illusion, he can spend an action (or maybe reaction?) to tell his allies that it's not real, giving them an immediate Perception check (or maybe Will save) to disbelieve the illusion as well. Could take up their reaction, but would give them the chance to take all three regular actions on their turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what illusion does. It is powerful. It will almost always waste some enemy actions.
If you are talking about a heightened spell then it is not just a level 1 spell.
However, I think it is reasonable to have a lot of circumstantial modfiers. Even quite large modifiers. These are always RAW. You need to consider.
a) is the caster making any effort to disguise that they are casting spells?
b) is there known to be an illusionist about?
c) are the monsters familiar with the local terrain?
d) did you just drop the spell on top of the enemy while they were there?
e) is anyone firing through the illusionary walls at them?
f) or has someone just walked through that wall?
I don't think it is reasonable to create complex strutures with illusionary object. A wall is fine, a maze is not.
If the illusion buys the party a few actions, enough to run away or to perhaps temporary isolate part of the enemy - then it is working as it should.
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.
So for the level one, if the creature touches the illusion, and thus their hand/sword goes straight through it, they "know" it is an illusion and can walk right through it. You only have to "disbelieve" if you want to be able to see through it.
At level 2, it is a bit more complicated. My question is: if I have an illusory wall, can you still walk through it? I would say yes only because otherwise it can be as effective as a much higher level wall spell. If a one of the opponents disbelieves and walks through it, its companions now "know" it is an illusion and not a conjured wall and can then walk through without disbelieving.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maze is right out, as that's no longer an object.
And remember your allies don't know it's an illusion unless forewarned (which they can do, but hopefully not retroactively!) Assuming players do have their PCs do so, the other PCs still can't see through it either.
So it's a PC spending the important chunk of their turn to put up a "barrier" that's just as restrictive to themselves as their enemies, and not very restrictive at that.
So I don't see an issue with the 2nd level version working like this, as it's comparable to Web or Obscuring Mist.
The 1st level version, since it doesn't have a touch component, only delays until the first person makes their save and "yells, just step at it and you'll see" (though likely nothing faster than a Step unless they enjoy slamming into walls, which could be a thing in Troll culture).
This all has legitimate tactical use, but not so much that it automatically benefits the party more than the bad guys.
All that stuff about "they spend an action..." applies just as much to the PCs (except maybe the caster).
I don't know if I'd let somebody who believed in the wall target beyond it, though I'd have to reread specifics for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd have to say that ANY kind of real Wall or immense obstacle would probably qualify as a Structure and NOT an Object.
If something cannot be reasonably picked up and moved without either taking it apart or requiring an immense amount of force/strength then it should probably be considered landscape/structure/terrain instead of just "an object."
The existence of the level 5 spell Illusory Scene suggests that the scope of your examples probably reasonably goes beyond what's allowed by a level 1 Illusory Object.
Your scene doesn't include changes to the environment around it, though you can place your scene within the illusory environment of a hallucinatory terrain spell.Likewise, Hallucinatory Terrain can't change and disguise structures.
A level 4 and 5 spell can't change the environment, I don't see why you'd be comfortable letting illusory object do it. Creating a 40 foot maze, a 40 foot cage, etc, is pretty clearly manipulation of the environment. The character also doesn't have a birds eye view to make a good maze - there's no reason to expect they can envision this properly.
I have a different understand about this. I understand environment as environment! Day, night, sun, wind, smells... just because the example that the magic description used is hallucinatory terrain to "complete" this limitation.
So if a player wants to use the magic to create a lighting electric fence ilusion with this spell he can.
But I agree that this magic is too efective in the hands of a smart player. So if you think that this magic is too strong and is not in pair with other spells. Instead of ban it, just level it up to a uper spell level.
Just take care to not invert and make the spell useless. Ex.: I don't think that make it a lvl 3 spell would be fait because at this level we already have the wall spells that can do similar effects. But a lvl 2 spell maybe fair enough. It will be in pair with spells like invisibility and darkness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd have to say that ANY kind of real Wall or immense obstacle would probably qualify as a Structure and NOT an Object.
If something cannot be reasonably picked up and moved without either taking it apart or requiring an immense amount of force/strength then it should probably be considered landscape/structure/terrain instead of just "an object."
They give one example in the spell Illusory Object and that is a waterfall.
So this line of reasoning is contradicted by the rules
Maze is right out, as that's no longer an object.
And remember your allies don't know it's an illusion unless forewarned (which they can do, but hopefully not retroactively!) Assuming players do have their PCs do so, the other PCs still can't see through it either.
So it's a PC spending the important chunk of their turn to put up a "barrier" that's just as restrictive to themselves as their enemies, and not very restrictive at that.
So I don't see an issue with the 2nd level version working like this, as it's comparable to Web or Obscuring Mist.
The 1st level version, since it doesn't have a touch component, only delays until the first person makes their save and "yells, just step at it and you'll see" (though likely nothing faster than a Step unless they enjoy slamming into walls, which could be a thing in Troll culture).This all has legitimate tactical use, but not so much that it automatically benefits the party more than the bad guys.
All that stuff about "they spend an action..." applies just as much to the PCs (except maybe the caster).
I don't know if I'd let somebody who believed in the wall target beyond it, though I'd have to reread specifics for that.
Walls are considered objects by the game's terminology. They have object immunities and they are damaged in the same way objects are.
An example given in the spell is literally a full on waterfall. It is pretty clear that you can create an illusion of pretty much anything that isn't a creature that fits in the area so long as it is stationary.
I don't really understand the point of trying to rules lawyer the definition of object to nerf the spell, if you're the GM you can just houserule it if you want. It's not like anyone casting this spell is going to interpret the rules that way off the bat, so you'll have to tell them you consider a waterfall an object and a maze not an object in your games anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a different understand about this. I understand environment as environment! Day, night, sun, wind, smells... just because the example that the magic description used is hallucinatory terrain to "complete" this limitation.So if a player wants to use the magic to create a lighting electric fence ilusion with this spell he can.
But I agree that this magic is too efective in the hands of a smart player. So if you think that this magic is too strong and is not in pair with other spells. Instead of ban it, just level it up to a uper spell level.
Just take care to not invert and make the spell useless. Ex.: I don't think that make it a lvl 3 spell would be fait because at this level we already have the wall spells that can do similar effects. But a lvl 2 spell maybe fair enough. It will be in pair with spells like invisibility and darkness.
Yes I do agree that this magic can ge very strong in the hands of a smart player. Illusions and Walls are still effective control magics and they can seriously change the balance of planned encouters. Or side step or delay them.
But this is what a typical control caster should be trying to do. Intelligent play should be rewarded. I don't think you should frustrate them by changing the rules. I think you should respond with harder challenges like more enemies, or withdrawing and retrying the encounter in another spot, or merging encounters because they are clearly handling them too well.
Its very hard for a module writer to balance the game - because some groups will use superior tactics and some will not. I think it incumbant on the GM to tweak balance, before tweaking the rules.
In the end the party are still going to have to deal with the monsters. The fighters will still get their chance.
Maze is right out, as that's no longer an object.
And remember your allies don't know it's an illusion unless forewarned (which they can do, but hopefully not retroactively!) Assuming players do have their PCs do so, the other PCs still can't see through it either.
So it's a PC spending the important chunk of their turn to put up a "barrier" that's just as restrictive to themselves as their enemies, and not very restrictive at that.
So I don't see an issue with the 2nd level version working like this, as it's comparable to Web or Obscuring Mist.
The 1st level version, since it doesn't have a touch component, only delays until the first person makes their save and "yells, just step at it and you'll see" (though likely nothing faster than a Step unless they enjoy slamming into walls, which could be a thing in Troll culture).This all has legitimate tactical use, but not so much that it automatically benefits the party more than the bad guys.
All that stuff about "they spend an action..." applies just as much to the PCs (except maybe the caster).
I don't know if I'd let somebody who believed in the wall target beyond it, though I'd have to reread specifics for that.Walls are considered objects by the game's terminology. They have object immunities and they are damaged in the same way objects are.
An example given in the spell is literally a full on waterfall. It is pretty clear that you can create an illusion of pretty much anything that isn't a creature that fits in the area so long as it is stationary.
I don't really understand the point of trying to rules lawyer the definition of object to nerf the spell, if you're the GM you can just houserule it if you want. It's not like anyone casting this spell is going to interpret the rules that way off the bat, so you'll have to tell them you consider a waterfall an object and a maze not an object in your games anyway.
I did not say one couldn't make a wall. I said maze, which IMO would consist of several walls (and therefore require multiple castings). I'd think walls would be the most common use since they're the one I've seen more than all others combined by PCs.
I also did not say one couldn't make something similar to a waterfall, so perhaps you'd meant to respond to 'themetricsystem' who was against both walls and landscapes.Given that likely error, I'll ignore the rudeness of the rest which ignores that I explicitly pointed out that the spell seems balanced against other spells of its level(s) because it's not as hard to overcome as the OP made it out to be and it hinders the PCs too.
I do believe the spell makes one object, even if it's as complex as a waterfall or a trebuchet (a classic use in D&D warfare) or jack-in-the-box, but not multiple objects. So say, if somebody wanted to build an atypical maze-like structure with this spell, they could if they could imagine it as one object, i.e. a giant beehive or one of those trees that are one plant spread into a wide area (since inanimate plants are objects in PF). With imagination (and the large area of the spell!), one could make one of tons of phenomenal objects.
Though I'll add that tree wouldn't have a leafy floor underneath nor shed leaves (each a separate object).
There are problems of where the line is between one object and one conglomeration of objects (i.e. a typical maze), but that's where I'd default to common usage, i.e. we wouldn't call a house a singular object (even if conceptually one thing), but might do so for a house-sized, palatial tent (with nothing inside of course). Again, the line's iffy, and it's more a spectrum requiring adjudication. If the PC has enough intelligence, I might even help the player figure out a loophole, though I wouldn't spend much table-time on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that this spell is limited to a single object. The Waterfall is a complex object with moving parts including their water spray. The spell description is more likely "you cannot move the illusion to outside spell area or make it in a bigger than area".
The maze problem IMO is one of the most easier illusion to disbelieve, once that on of the main actions I believe a NPC will do is to touch and try to understand that complex wall that was summoned around it (maybe also tries to brake or climb it just to discover that it is fake).
I also think that is a magic hard to be reused against same foes. Once that they noticed that it was a trick they probably try to test of new spells casted by the same caster is not an illusion. (but the player can trick again hiding a trap/hazard/spell in other side of the spell)
The most creative use is the magic to create a protective jail around the rangers. The most intelligent enemies probably will try to focus in opponents from outside first while the rangers still attack from inside.
Ironically I think the Blue_frog can also make creature with imprecise detection to has a bigger chance to notice that at last the level 1 of the spell is an illusion and disbelieve it.
I think a lot of this boils down to the meaning and interpretation of the "can't ignore" part of the rules about illusions and disbelieving them because the respective part in the CRB is only talking about visual illusions.
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.
Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion.
For example, and in a theoretical scenario, can one (ab)use a 2nd level Illusory Object to successfully bridge a chasm? After all the disbelieve action described in the spell has a "can" condition. So if an illusory wall blocks movement an illusory bridge will surely help you accross? On the other hand what happens after you see an ally fall from an illusory bridge or walk through an illusory wall? Apart from vision respectively line of sight, do I still need to touch or Seek to ignore the illusion myself, e.g. for movement?
In my humble opinion the respective rules RAI should be read as:
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 image of 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.
Which means that visual illusions only affect vision, not other types of interaction.
This is what illusion does. It is powerful. It will almost always waste some enemy actions.
If you are talking about a heightened spell then it is not just a level 1 spell.
However, I think it is reasonable to have a lot of circumstantial modfiers. Even quite large modifiers. These are always RAW. You need to consider.
a) is the caster making any effort to disguise that they are casting spells?
b) is there known to be an illusionist about?
c) are the monsters familiar with the local terrain?
d) did you just drop the spell on top of the enemy while they were there?
e) is anyone firing through the illusionary walls at them?
f) or has someone just walked through that wall?I don't think it is reasonable to create complex strutures with illusionary object. A wall is fine, a maze is not.
If the illusion buys the party a few actions, enough to run away or to perhaps temporary isolate part of the enemy - then it is working as it should.
Well, that's the thing, spells that create a cage or a wall of stone do exist, so there's no real reason for a group of gnolls or ogres to think the cage that popped around them is an illusion, unless the GM is metagaming.
I agree that wasting actions is working as intended, but I still think it's VERY powerful for its level. A deadly encounter with a barghest and some other monsters ended as a cakewalk when the barghest lost a whole round disbelieving the cage. There's no spell at low level that would make a couple monsters (let alone a boss) lose at least one action even on a success, and more on a fail - and with no sustain.
Yeah, I'd have to say that ANY kind of real Wall or immense obstacle would probably qualify as a Structure and NOT an Object.
If something cannot be reasonably picked up and moved without either taking it apart or requiring an immense amount of force/strength then it should probably be considered landscape/structure/terrain instead of just "an object."
Well, as others pointed out, the very description of the spell mentions a waterfall, so if you can create a waterfall, I don't think a wall would be much of a stretch.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it takes an action to point out an invisible enemy, it is pretty reasonable to allow a character who spends one action to interact with the illusion to point it out to an ally. The way I run something like a 40ft cage as a level 1 spell, is that the first creature might walk up and touch the cage, with no sense of touch at all, I would give a +4 circumstance bonus to the save to disbelieve the cage. If they see that it is an illusion, then they can spend an action to point it out to their allies. The allies would still not be able to see through the illusion, but wouldn't need to spend an action to walk through it, since it has been pointed out to them that it is a fake.
With the level 2 spell, I would not let a character try to walk through the wall or cage without succeeding on the save because the illusion has the right feel. There would be no bonus to save for touching it, in other words.
However, if the player characters start ignoring the illusion themselves, then the creatures will take notice of that. "Arrows are coming through the wall" is enough for me to have the monsters ignore the wall for the purposes of movement, but they would still have to disbelieve it to see through it.
With illusionists in the party, it is really important for players and GMs to talk to each other about what the GM will allow and what they wont. The game is about telling a story together, not against each other. Spells, abilities and other aspects of the game that players can get, enemies can too. Enemy casters may be able to identify spells as they are being cast, but most will not. Same as with players.
If the players pull a particularly effective illusion, then have the enemy respond with fear and pull back to a more secure location with allies. If the players are exclusively trying to use illusions in combat for battlefield control, I would generally allow it to work where enemies would mostly choose to beleive that the thing is real and try to aviod it, unless the illusion is designed to be so obtrusive or unbelievable that the creatures would have to interact with it.
For example, and in a theoretical scenario, can one (ab)use a 2nd level Illusory Object to successfully bridge a chasm? After all the disbelieve action described in the spell has a "can" condition. So if an illusory wall blocks movement an illusory bridge will surely help you accross? On the other hand what happens after you see an ally fall from an illusory bridge or walk through an illusory wall? Apart from vision respectively line of sight, do I still need to touch or Seek to ignore the illusion myself, e.g. for movement?
As illusion it can never block or used has efective bridge, because it can trick your senses but not the physics. If a char creates a wall with lvl 2 illusion object it can see and sense the wall reaction felling but if try to apply any strength his hand will cross with the strange sensation of being pressed around by the wall but without any resistance. So you can try to disbelieve it to make your mind know that this is an illusion something affecting your senses and is not real, when do you disbelieve it will become hazy and indistinct to you as the rules say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am overwhelmingly in agreement but some extra comments.
If it takes an action to point out an invisible enemy, it is pretty reasonable to allow a character who spends one action to interact with the illusion to point it out to an ally.
Pointing out an invisible persion is an action. But this involves a more complex conversation about a particular square. This is why it takes an action.
I'm still quite happy for a character to say as a free action - the wall is fake step through it.
If the players pull a particularly effective illusion, then have the enemy respond with fear and pull back to a more secure location with allies.
I'd like to point out that you have to ask for a save to get a save versus an illusion (excluding a few specific feats). So for my mnd the definition of an effective illusion is where the enemy doesn't even ask for a save, because it seems reasonable to him.
Perhaps the guards see the wagon roll out blocking the street, so they could send some men forward to clear it - interacting with it and thereby getting a save, or, they could just decide to go around the block and come at the party from the other side in a few rounds time - no save asked for and none rolled.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, and in a theoretical scenario, can one (ab)use a 2nd level Illusory Object to successfully bridge a chasm? After all the disbelieve action described in the spell has a "can" condition. So if an illusory wall blocks movement an illusory bridge will surely help you accross? On the other hand what happens after you see an ally fall from an illusory bridge or walk through an illusory wall? Apart from vision respectively line of sight, do I still need to touch or Seek to ignore the illusion myself, e.g. for movement?As illusion it can never block or used has efective bridge, because it can trick your senses but not the physics. If a char creates a wall with lvl 2 illusion object it can see and sense the wall reaction felling but if try to apply any strength his hand will cross with the strange sensation of being pressed around by the wall but without any resistance. So you can try to disbelieve it to make your mind know that this is an illusion something affecting your senses and is not real, when do you disbelieve it will become hazy and indistinct to you as the rules say.
For these types illusions I think I would agree with you 100% I think this should be the default approach. The feedback from touching the object is such that you pull back and choose not to move forward, because your mind thinks it is real.
But some illusions are special and are quasi real such as House of Imaginary Walls. This type can be solid if you believe it. Even to the extrant of being able to preferentially climb on it and ignore gravity.
I don't see the distinction being made by any tag in the rules, but is is clearly in the description.
A better system for illusions would have tags for "Sensual", "Mental" and "Quasi-Real" to distinguish between the different types of illusions so we could apply consistent rules across them.
The concern being that if the system doesnt do this, that different game writers/designers will do illusions in contradictory ways. So players and GMs will just get confused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better system for illusions would have tags for "Sensual", "Mental" and "Quasi-Real" to distinguish between the different types of illusions so we could apply consistent rules across them.
Agree I fell the lack of traits like these. The game have Illusion, Visual, auditory and even olfactory, but don't have traits to describe how many illusions work exactly for tactile actions.
- An Illusion that make sensuous could have Sensual (:P) trait describing that it interfere in or tactile sense making you believe that something exists by touch, but when you try to manipulate you will trespass it and notice that's is a illusion.
- An illusion that can hurt you or put some condition in you already is the mental trait, ilusion with mental traits can also has "non-mental" conditions effects like poison but causing mental damage instead because the char sense and think that he's in that condition (just like a hypochondriac can have symptoms of a disease just because he believes on it).
- An illusion that can physically interact with the chars would be Quasi-Real allowing even impossible things like allow a caster to create a brigde and allow to everyone to trespass it, o even just like happens in old PF1/3.5 have something like shadow spells who can imitate the effect of real spells and objects.
It could be a good to put in an errata.
I have a few ways, though for me, I don't so much nerf the creative use of the spell so much as I apply a bit of realism.
1) the illusion has to take the form of a physical object. This sounds obvious, but it automatically denies things like making a seamless "blinding globe", as per the example of blinding a flier.
Something like a blindingly thick cloud of smoke is legal, but since the flier is in it, they are already interacting the second they spend an action to do anything, so they get a roll, and it's not like they are trapped inside even if they fail.
2) the illusion needs to be plausible to decieve. If you use a level 1 spell to make a wall of stone, the fact that it make absolutely no noise is automatically sus. In these situations, I have the caster roll perform or deception against observers' perception DCs. If the caster fails, the observer is tipped off that something is off, but they still have to spend actions to figure out it's an illusion.
3) actions spent to interact with an illusion dont have to be dead actions. If an illusionary wall pops up in front of the barbarian, and the barbarian decides "I'm gonna charge and smash it", I'll give them the save, and if they pass, they get to carry on with their movement. If they fail, their movement is cut off as soon as they are adjacent to the wall.
4) any action that doesn't believable interact with the illusion is treated.as taking an action to interact with it. So like, if I use a burning hands against a level 1 illusory object wall, the fire will go through it, and this would be grounds for rolling against it
5) illusions aren't mind control. If your teammate walks through the wall and you see it, nothing says you have to stay there looking at it until you win. You can absolutely try to shoot an arrow through it at the spot you thought an enemy was at or whatevs
I actually really like how powerful illusory object is in 2e, as long as you're creative with it. Illusions are one of my favorite forms of magic, and 3.5 (and by extention, pf 1e) absolutely dunked on them. Not a fan of 2e's shadow blast (mainly just because better of two saves AND only 1d8 for every 2d6 of other similar blasts), but just the basic illusion spells let you play a competent and dangerous illusionist
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) the illusion has to take the form of a physical object.
Absolutely as Illusionary creature is another spell
I actually really like how powerful illusory object is in 2e, as long as you're creative with it. Illusions are one of my favorite forms of magic, and 3.5 (and by...
Illusionists have to be intelligent and engage in the game. The GM has to be adaptable to handle a good illusionist. Sometimes you do have to let them change the game. So it can be hard for a GM who has only got one encounter planned, or who is just reading out of a module and is on light preparation, to cope with.
But it is worth it. It is just a better game. I'm very happy PF2 has good rules for illusions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you use a level 1 spell to make a wall of stone, the fact that it make absolutely no noise is automatically sus.
Do stone walls typically make noises where you're from???
|
|
Based on "Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion." and the aforementioned text that states that a creature can know something is an illusion and still be affected if they did not disbelieve, I would rule that any creature that fulfills the conditions to attempt to disbelieve the illusion already automatically knows that it is an illusion.
IMO, to disbelieve, you have to know something is an illusion first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, telling someone that something is an illusion might help, but it won't totally negate the illusion.
Take virtual reality and how hard it is to walk through a chasm with a 3d helmet. You KNOW you're in your living room, you KNOW there's no lava and there's no monster coming to get you, but you still have to fight all your instincts to put your foot in the (fake) chasm.
Now take Pathfinder, where magic does exist and people can make mistakes. Even if your fellow orc tells you "hey, this huge pit is strange, i'm 100% positive it's an illusion", unless he steps on it first, I probably won't try ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you use a level 1 spell to make a wall of stone, the fact that it make absolutely no noise is automatically sus.Do stone walls typically make noises where you're from???
Absolutely. A wall of stone coming out of the ground would probably be accompanied by rumbling and grinding as they erupt from the ground, and they certainly make a noise if I try to bash it down with a sledgehammer. A shout towards it might echo, and certainly noise on the other side would be muffled. Illusionary Object level 1 doesn't replicate any of this
Based on "Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion." and the aforementioned text that states that a creature can know something is an illusion and still be affected if they did not disbelieve, I would rule that any creature that fulfills the conditions to attempt to disbelieve the illusion already automatically knows that it is an illusion.
IMO, to disbelieve, you have to know something is an illusion first.
I think that is a bit extreme way to phrase it. Rather most creatures will just work with the illusion as if it were a normal object, which often effectively means they touch it or look at it closely because it is something new and strange. Sometimes they will just accept it and treat it as real, and never even try to examine it. Only intelligent creatures who know about illusions will actually attempt to disbelive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I did not find the right words (not a native speaker). What I mean is that I believe you cannot even try to disbelieve something if you are not aware that it might be an illusion.
Since the spell automatically allows any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it to attempt to disbelieve your illusion, I think it makes any such creature aware that the image might be an illusion. That these creature do not start inclined to believe what they perceive, but to disbelieve it.
Which would IMO be in line with the spell's level and taking into account the "Too good to be true" principle.