Can your allies choose not to be effected by your illusion spells?
Put another way, do they automatically see through the illusion when they are not the target?
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 concealedCan your allies choose not to be effected by your illusion spells?
Put another way, do they automatically see through the illusion when they are not the target?
The illusion exists regardless.
Caster cast's an Illusionary door between the party and the enemy. It blocks line of sight to the enemy for everyone even the caster.
No one can move through it without a disbelieve attempt and success. Exception being that forced movement can move through it.
I'd probably prohibit casting spells or ranged attacks through the wall till a successful disbelieve.
The PCs know it is an illusion, so they know to make the attempt.
Even if they succeed the GM is still allowed to have the illusion provide concealment.
Once attacks start coming through the wall, the enemy will know to make disbelieve attempts too. Though a sudden wall might make them suspicious. But they are still restricted till they succeed.
House of Imaginary Walls makes it clear that your allies don't have to make roll to disbelieve if they want to believe the illusion.
It also means that for just this spell, your allies can look away to automatically be unaffected by the wall.
Can your allies choose not to be effected by your illusion spells?
Put another way, do they automatically see through the illusion when they are not the target?
Nope. Nothing ever suggests that they would.
Concurred, which is why, to refer another bold statement, illusory object does NOT, in fact, invalidate ranged combat.
Makes an illusionist pair well with a high perception team though, like ranger/rogue/gunslinger/fighter since these tend to have high enough perception to pierce your illusions.
Caster cast's an Illusionary door between the party and the enemy. It blocks line of sight to the enemy for everyone even the caster.
No one can move through it without a disbelieve attempt and success. Exception being that forced movement can move through it.
I'd probably prohibit casting spells or ranged attacks through the wall till a successful disbelieve.The PCs know it is an illusion, so they know to make the attempt.
Even if they succeed the GM is still allowed to have the illusion provide concealment.Once attacks start coming through the wall, the enemy will know to make disbelieve attempts too. Though a sudden wall might make them suspicious. But they are still restricted till they succeed.
As far as I'm aware, nothing stops you or anyone else from just moving through an illusion regardless of belief status. Sure, you can't see through it and it might feel uncomfortable, but there's nothing physically stopping you.
If you can unintentionally fall through an illusory wall by trying to lean against it, I doubt you'd be unable to intentionally walk back through to the other side. Otherwise, you wind up being totally locked up if you go to sit on a fake bench and now your face is spliced with the illusion when you fall through or if the caster just makes an illusion of a floating wall phasing through everyone's torsos.
Caster cast's an Illusionary door between the party and the enemy. It blocks line of sight to the enemy for everyone even the caster.
No one can move through it without a disbelieve attempt and success. Exception being that forced movement can move through it.
I'd probably prohibit casting spells or ranged attacks through the wall till a successful disbelieve.The PCs know it is an illusion, so they know to make the attempt.
Even if they succeed the GM is still allowed to have the illusion provide concealment.Once attacks start coming through the wall, the enemy will know to make disbelieve attempts too. Though a sudden wall might make them suspicious. But they are still restricted till they succeed.
As far as I'm aware, nothing stops you or anyone else from just moving through an illusion regardless of belief status. Sure, you can't see through it and it might feel uncomfortable, but there's nothing physically stopping you.
If you can unintentionally fall through an illusory wall by trying to lean against it, I doubt you'd be unable to intentionally walk back through to the other side. Otherwise, you wind up being totally locked up if you go to sit on a fake bench and now your face is spliced with the illusion when you fall through or if the caster just makes an illusion of a floating wall phasing through everyone's torsos.
Its not really well spelled out. That's how I read the illusion rules
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=267The way I think of it is that because you believe the illusion you can't choose to act as if it is not there. You can doubt the illusion but you can't choose to walk through it, until you make the disbelieve check. There is no limit to your number of disbelieve checks.
Its not really well spelled out. That's how I read the illusion rules
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=267
The way I think of it is that because you believe the illusion you can't choose to act as if it is not there. You can doubt the illusion but you can't choose to walk through it, until you make the disbelieve check. There is no limit to your number of disbelieve checks.
Even knowing that it is mostly balancing reasons to not being able to circumvent illusions too easily, the discrepancy in between sensory input and the law of physics always creates a major disconnect, at least for me.
If you go by the "as long as you think its real, its real" approach that the rules imply then you should theoretically also be able to walk over an illusionary bridge. However in this case physics are adhered to by the rules part regarding forced movement. If however you deliberately fling yourself against an illusionary wall or even more evidently do a long jump right at it, you can suddenly not pass the illusion because your momentum somehow stops midair?
Dont get me wrong, as this is no attempt to bypass a rule or to invalidate illusions, and I very well understand that the difference is in between you getting moved (forced movement, falling or sliding down a slope etc) and you moving yourself against your tricked brain, however it does feel wrong on some levels because momentum (which I do consider a type of forced movement) is not taken into account entirely.
Its not really well spelled out. That's how I read the illusion rules
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=267
The way I think of it is that because you believe the illusion you can't choose to act as if it is not there. You can doubt the illusion but you can't choose to walk through it, until you make the disbelieve check. There is no limit to your number of disbelieve checks.
Even knowing that it is mostly balancing reasons to not being able to circumvent illusions too easily, the discrepancy in between sensory input and the law of physics always creates a major disconnect, at least for me.
If you go by the "as long as you think its real, its real" approach that the rules imply then you should theoretically also be able to walk over an illusionary bridge. However in this case physics are adhered to by the rules part regarding forced movement. If however you deliberately fling yourself against an illusionary wall or even more evidently do a long jump right at it, you can suddenly not pass the illusion because your momentum somehow stops midair?
Dont get me wrong, as this is no attempt to bypass a rule or to invalidate illusions, and I very well understand that the difference is in between you getting moved (forced movement, falling or sliding down a slope etc) and you moving yourself against your tricked brain, however it does feel wrong on some levels because momentum (which I do consider a type of forced movement) is not taken into account entirely.
Ok there are spells where you can explicitly walk over a bridge you know to be an illusion, example House of Imaginary Walls, you can't walk on it when you have disbelieved it.
But I'm not insisting this is the general case. All I'm saying is you won't CHOOSE to walk through it until you have disbelieved it. You can touch it, fire an arrow at it, Strike it, Shove someone else into it, because it feels real but you think there is something wrong with it - but just not walk through it yourself.
Once you have successfully made your disbelieve roll you can see targets behind it (potential concealment) and you can walk through it.
But I'm not insisting this is the general case. All I'm saying is you won't CHOOSE to walk through it until you have disbelieved it. You can touch it, fire an arrow at it, Strike it, Shove someone else into it, because it feels real but you think there is something wrong with it - but just not walk through it yourself.
Once you have successfully made your disbelieve roll you can see targets behind it (potential concealment) and you can walk through it.
And this is where things get iffy, e.g when we look at @HumbleGamer's example:
If the enemy casts a real Wall of Stone the Fighter can choose to hurl himself at the wall, probably ending up damaged and prone (but his decision, so no ragrets), however if the enemy just casts the illusion of a stone wall he won't (can't?) choose to do that?
Again, I understand that hurling yourself at the illusionary wall probably counts as interacting with the wall as a basis for future attempts of disbelieving, however it probably also stops your ongoing movement, which is perfectly fine from a balancing and rules point of view, however just not especially intuitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm not insisting this is the general case. All I'm saying is you won't CHOOSE to walk through it until you have disbelieved it. You can touch it, fire an arrow at it, Strike it, Shove someone else into it, because it feels real but you think there is something wrong with it - but just not walk through it yourself.
Once you have successfully made your disbelieve roll you can see targets behind it (potential concealment) and you can walk through it.And this is where things get iffy, e.g when we look at @HumbleGamer's example:
If the enemy casts a real Wall of Stone the Fighter can choose to hurl himself at the wall, probably ending up damaged and prone (but his decision, so no ragrets), however if the enemy just casts the illusion of a stone wall he won't (can't?) choose to do that?
Again, I understand that hurling yourself at the illusionary wall probably counts as interacting with the wall as a basis for future attempts of disbelieving, however it probably also stops your ongoing movement, which is perfectly fine from a balancing and rules point of view, however just not especially intuitive.
I mean sure but then you get to the point where you can bisect someone with an immovable rod because technically the rod becomes immovable and the planet is hurtling at several hundred thousands of miles per hour.
Or you can set up 10000 peasants adjacent to each other in a line and have them pass a rock to the next one (1 action interact to receive, one action interact to pass) and then on the last one the peasant throwing the rock at a target would throw it at 5833 mph this shattering any target using good ole peasant handgun.
The reason why you can't do any of these is because this is a game, with game balance. We immerse ourselves as much as we can but yes there will be nonsensical elements (even less egregious, just the stable worldwide pricing system is non sensical).
Barbarian rushing at the wall stops because subconsciously he knows it's a real wall and is holding himself back, nuff said ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm not insisting this is the general case. All I'm saying is you won't CHOOSE to walk through it until you have disbelieved it. You can touch it, fire an arrow at it, Strike it, Shove someone else into it, because it feels real but you think there is something wrong with it - but just not walk through it yourself.
Once you have successfully made your disbelieve roll you can see targets behind it (potential concealment) and you can walk through it.And this is where things get iffy, e.g when we look at @HumbleGamer's example:
If the enemy casts a real Wall of Stone the Fighter can choose to hurl himself at the wall, probably ending up damaged and prone (but his decision, so no ragrets), however if the enemy just casts the illusion of a stone wall he won't (can't?) choose to do that?
Again, I understand that hurling yourself at the illusionary wall probably counts as interacting with the wall as a basis for future attempts of disbelieving, however it probably also stops your ongoing movement, which is perfectly fine from a balancing and rules point of view, however just not especially intuitive.
The thing is that it shouldn't be easy to ram your head into a wall of stone that all your senses are saying is real. Self preservation instincts should kick in at some point. If a player just wanted to charge through one at full speed, I might ask them to roll a will save to overcome those instincts. It takes a little bit of agency out of the player's hands, but so does the fleeing condition. On a failure, you flinch or hesitate and need to use an action to more carefully Shove through the illusion. Against a 1st level illusory object, that's sufficient to push through without further checks. Against a second level object which feels real to the touch, you'd still need to roll to disbelieve as part of that Shove action. I might allow a bonus on either check it there's clear evidence illusions are in okay.
Illusory object is a really good spell if you place the object out of reach of an opponent, especially if you make it look harmful to touch. Against a melee based foe, you can make them spend one action to move up to it, a second to inspect it, and a third to move through it towards their target. And that assumes they succeed on their disbelieve check.
Attacking the wall would also trigger a disbelieve roll, FYI. So when I say you need to use an action to disbelieve that's a pretty broad statement.
Yeah, I wouldn't allow it in a ranged attack, but if you try to smash through it with a melee attack, that's definitely spending actions to engage with it. So you'd get the perception roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless the situation, seeing a wall appear out of nowhere would give any intelligent being 2 alternatives:
"The Wall is real" vs "The wall is an illusion"
There are no other possibilities.
Possibility #3: The wall is both real and an illusion. ;D
(Shadow magic is still a thing I believe.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I wouldn't allow it in a ranged attack, but if you try to smash through it with a melee attack, that's definitely spending actions to engage with it. So you'd get the perception roll.I'd probably allow to reskin a ranged attack, allowing it to be flavor for the "perception" check to disbelieve ( shooting an arrow to to see if the wall is real or not, for example, rather than observing the illusion ).
As for the melee stuff:
If the smashing is meant to disbelieve I see no issue.
If the smashing is meant to either disbelieve or deal damage to a real wall, I wouldn't allow both ( I'd probably go with the damage, unless the character asks for the disbelieve ).
I don't really see the difference in intention as significant there. You're going to find the wall isn't there one way or another, so if that doesn't trigger the disbelieve check you could reasonably just stride through at that point.
The smash already wastes an action and accrues MAP, which is pretty awesome mileage from a 1st level spell slot.
What's the difference between poking an illusion with a stick in the hand versus poking it with a stick that is thrown? Logically speaking, I don't understand why you would allow one but not the other.
What's the difference between poking an illusion with a stick in the hand versus poking it with a stick that is thrown? Logically speaking, I don't understand why you would allow one but not the other.
One creates a visual question mark. You don't "know" what happened to the thrown stick. It could have been disintegrated or teleported, for example. When you poke with the stickk, you not only have kinetic feedback (or the lack thereof) but can put the right stick in and the right stick out. Then you can do the hokey pokey and turn it all about. It gives you much more data.
I mean if a player threw the stick with the intention of studying the effects, that's basically just a Seek with a little more immersion. But if they were trying to fire an arrow to hit an enemy Hidden on the other side of the wall, or dodge an arrow that just flew out of it, that's not really studying the illusion.
The tactically important part is that disbelieving is an action you have to take nearly anyway you slice it. Not a passive thing you get from your ally telling you it is an illusion or a single piece of evidence suggested it is an illusion.
That also means there will be times you want to delay your turn so your allies don't go between you and the opponent you're trying to fool. You can make it lose actions without necessarily penalizing your allies that way.
This really feels like one of them cases where if a Player asssumes its an illusion, i'm going to either ask it to roll a recall knowledge check to recognize the spell that was cast, or sassily ask them to get recognize spell before they require free action identification.
If the wall is then identified as a casting of ''illusory object'' then I'd even give circumstance bonuses on the checks to disbelieve it.
This really feels like one of them cases where if a Player asssumes its an illusion, i'm going to either ask it to roll a recall knowledge check to recognize the spell that was cast, or sassily ask them to get recognize spell before they require free action identification.
If the wall is then identified as a casting of ''illusory object'' then I'd even give circumstance bonuses on the checks to disbelieve it.
Why would you ask a player a recall knowledge to just guess?
- Guess is just making an assumption based on what the character knows.
- Recall knowledge is expending a resource ( generally 1 action ) to quickly recollect what the character may know about a specific topic ( attempting a check which may succeed or not ).So, given a situation like:
DM: "The spellcaster waves her hands while pronouncing arcane words... and a stone wall appears out of nowhere..."
A) Character: "Do you think you are going to stop me with a mere stone wall?" Said the fighter charging head down, determined to leap over it.
B) Character: "You won't stop me with your pity illusion!" Sais the fighter charging head down, determined to pass through the wall.
C) Character: "I am going to see through your little scheme..." Said the character, attempting a recall knowledge check or a seek check to disbelieve.
And so on.
One could argue that without training in arcana or occultism and at least a prior recall knowledge check, one would not even be aware of what illusions are.
Yeah, basically I think we can agree that this could be a fair guess based on context.
Like if you're fighting "gimble the magnificent, gnomish master of illusions!!" And he waves his hands and a wall appears, it's a fair guess!
But if you're fighting, I dunno, a tribe of lizard folk and one of their shamans waves his arms and a wall appears, and then you mistakenly show that it's illusory object in the chat, and a player goes "I take the guess that it's an illusion and attack it" I'mma kindly tell that player to shove it.
Regardless the situation, seeing a wall appear out of nowhere would give any intelligent being 2 alternatives:
"The Wall is real" vs "The wall is an illusion"
There are no other possibilities.
Possibility #3: The wall is both real and an illusion. ;D
(Shadow magic is still a thing I believe.)
True but I don't see this as substantially different than it being real or an illusion. Pun intended.
This really feels like one of them cases where if a Player asssumes its an illusion, i'm going to either ask it to roll a recall knowledge check to recognize the spell that was cast, or sassily ask them to get recognize spell before they require free action identification.
If the wall is then identified as a casting of ''illusory object'' then I'd even give circumstance bonuses on the checks to disbelieve it.
Why would you ask a player a recall knowledge to just guess?
- Guess is just making an assumption based on what the character knows.
- Recall knowledge is expending a resource ( generally 1 action ) to quickly recollect what the character may know about a specific topic ( attempting a check which may succeed or not ).So, given a situation like:
DM: "The spellcaster waves her hands while pronouncing arcane words... and a stone wall appears out of nowhere..."
A) Character: "Do you think you are going to stop me with a mere stone wall?" Said the fighter charging head down, determined to leap over it.
B) Character: "You won't stop me with your pity illusion!" Sais the fighter charging head down, determined to pass through the wall.
C) Character: "I am going to see through your little scheme..." Said the character, attempting a recall knowledge check or a seek check to disbelieve.
And so on.
Well there is an element of metagaming and just coming up with a rationalization here.
If the PC charges at the wall they get to make a disbelieve attempt, as that counts as interacting with the illusion. If they fail, the PC stops themselves before going through the wall. Illusions can have a mental component. The rules for illusion clearly states that you can't ignore the illusion - and running through it is clearly ignoring it - unless you make the check.
But as a GM I would be annoyed with such a player if they did this without an in game reason - to be fair though seeing the wall appear out of nothing is probably a good enough reason.
This really feels like one of them cases where if a Player asssumes its an illusion, i'm going to either ask it to roll a recall knowledge check to recognize the spell that was cast, or sassily ask them to get recognize spell before they require free action identification.
If the wall is then identified as a casting of ''illusory object'' then I'd even give circumstance bonuses on the checks to disbelieve it.
Why would you ask a player a recall knowledge to just guess?
- Guess is just making an assumption based on what the character knows.
- Recall knowledge is expending a resource ( generally 1 action ) to quickly recollect what the character may know about a specific topic ( attempting a check which may succeed or not ).So, given a situation like:
DM: "The spellcaster waves her hands while pronouncing arcane words... and a stone wall appears out of nowhere..."
A) Character: "Do you think you are going to stop me with a mere stone wall?" Said the fighter charging head down, determined to leap over it.
B) Character: "You won't stop me with your pity illusion!" Sais the fighter charging head down, determined to pass through the wall.
C) Character: "I am going to see through your little scheme..." Said the character, attempting a recall knowledge check or a seek check to disbelieve.
And so on.
Well there is an element of metagaming and just coming up with a rationalization here.
If the PC charges at the wall they get to make a disbelieve attempt, as that counts as interacting with the illusion. If they fail, the PC stops themselves before going through the wall. Illusions can have a mental component. The rules for illusion clearly states that you can't ignore the illusion - and running through it is clearly ignoring it - unless you make the check.
But as a GM I would be annoyed with such a player if they did this without an in game reason - to be fair though seeing the wall appear out of nothing is probably a good...
Well simply by the bulk of spells that create walls, a smart illusionist just replicates one of these spell effects.
As an example, while facing a powerful naga spellcaster, my kobold made an illusory ''Prismatic wall''. The goal was to discourage the naga from trying to go through the wall.
It worked, who the f!~& wants to voluntarily go through a prismatic wall!
On the player side, a spellcaster waving their hands and a wall appearing, that wall is MUCH more likely to be an actual wall spell rather than an illusion.
Cause you can't disbelieve a real wall, so casters who have them tend to favor them over a potentially flawed wall illusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well simply by the bulk of spells that create walls, a smart illusionist just replicates one of these spell effects.
It's important to remember that the first wall spell is level 3 when illusion spells start at cantrip level. Chances are high that most untrained characters consider illusions more likely than walls as they may not even be aware that it's possible to summon a wall.
Attacking or shoving, to keep the previous example, would result in:
- Expending 1 action
- Increasing your MAP
- Getting a disbelieve check, since you interactedIf you fail with your disbelieve check you are 100% aware the wall is not real.
No you aren't. You think it is likely to be an illusion but you aren't sure. There are other spell effects it might be.
But even so it is still effecting your mind so you can't ignore it.
Still you can't see past that illusion ( it would block 100% of your sight, including ranged attacks, affecting your perception of the surrounding ). But you are totally free of going past the wall and come back, since you know it's no barrier anymore.
No its still a barrier till you disbelieve it.
Shortly, even with a lvl 2 spell, you might be able to block force the enemies expending "at least" 1 action, eventually increasing their MAP for free on that turn. If you are lucky and they fail their check, the illusory object will still be in their way, affecting their sight.
Not really sure what you are saying here.
If the Naga Sorcerer in Alastar OG had been a character with recognize spell, then they might have a more than a fair chance to indirectly deal with the illusion.Not having any mean to know whether the prismatic wall were an illusion or not, not having a good reason to doubt about it or even simply expecting the kobold to just be powerful did the trick ( a nice flavored interaction between events I say )
Knowing the level of spells is not something your character is likely to know certainly not in detail.
The illusion is just going to waste some actions.
Yes the GM could be handing out some circumstance bonuses to disbelieve if you have pushed an ally through an illusion. Or if the spell is recognized. Its still not automatic.
No it doesn't have to be an attack and waste your MAP, a simple touch is not an attack.
There is nothing stopping you from going touch, touch, touch or perception check, perception check, perception check. You can keep rolling your disbelieve attempt till it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imo, you are definitely treating illusory stuff in a way it's not meant to be, and that will result in absurd scenarios with either enemies and players wasting actions over and over, because reasons, without any reasonable tradeoff.
Yeah I get it, I'm being a bit strict. But an illusionist is a significant character concept that is a fun an intelligent way to play.
Why should we allow all illusions to be defeated by a simple Shove? I don't want to do that. The game is much richer if illusions aren't irrelevant.
I don't see that wasting a few actions is a big problem. If you think it is work on your GM to start handing out large bonuses or giving you free disbelieve checks with each obvious violation of the illusions.
Its a two way street and there are trade offs.
The PF2 illusion system is one of the better ones out there.
Imo, you are definitely treating illusory stuff in a way it's not meant to be, and that will result in absurd scenarios with either enemies and players wasting actions over and over, because reasons, without any reasonable tradeoff.Yeah I get it, I'm being a bit strict. But an illusionist is a significant character concept that is a fun an intelligent way to play.
Why should we allow all illusions to be defeated by a simple Shove? I don't want to do that. The game is much richer if illusions aren't irrelevant.
I don't see that wasting a few actions is a big problem. If you think it is work on your GM to start handing out large bonuses or giving you free disbelieve checks with each obvious violation of the illusions.
Its a two way street and there are trade offs.
The PF2 illusion system is one of the better ones out there.
The most common illusion used is the level 1 Illusory Object. A level one spell should hardly lose more than one action without a save. Especially a spell that has such an out of combat use.
I'm personally with Humble Gamer on this one. If the ilusionist raises a Wall of Stone at level 1, the Orc Warrior is clearly not fooled as it's obvious it's an illusion. Maybe the first Orc Warrior will waste an action striking at it just to check, but the rest of the orcs will just jump through it.
Now, if the level 10 illusionist raises a Wall of Stone, the enemies will engage it with way more caution. Being an illusionist doesn't force everyone to trust anything you do, you need your illusions to be plausible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imo, you are definitely treating illusory stuff in a way it's not meant to be, and that will result in absurd scenarios with either enemies and players wasting actions over and over, because reasons, without any reasonable tradeoff.Yeah I get it, I'm being a bit strict. But an illusionist is a significant character concept that is a fun an intelligent way to play.
Why should we allow all illusions to be defeated by a simple Shove? I don't want to do that. The game is much richer if illusions aren't irrelevant.
I don't see that wasting a few actions is a big problem. If you think it is work on your GM to start handing out large bonuses or giving you free disbelieve checks with each obvious violation of the illusions.
Its a two way street and there are trade offs.
The PF2 illusion system is one of the better ones out there.
The most common illusion used is the level 1 Illusory Object. A level one spell should hardly lose more than one action without a save. Especially a spell that has such an out of combat use.
I'm personally with Humble Gamer on this one. If the ilusionist raises a Wall of Stone at level 1, the Orc Warrior is clearly not fooled as it's obvious it's an illusion. Maybe the first Orc Warrior will waste an action striking at it just to check, but the rest of the orcs will just jump through it.
Now, if the level 10 illusionist raises a Wall of Stone, the enemies will engage it with way more caution. Being an illusionist doesn't force everyone to trust anything you do, you need your illusions to be plausible.
How do the orcs know that he's level 1? Or that level 1 wizard's can't cast wall of stone? Is it because they themselves are aware that they are only level 0 creatures and couldn't possibly face a foe strong enough to cast wall of stone, because the wizard couldn't be level 9 and face them? Do the orcs know that they're a moderate level encounter ?
You're making your NPCs WAY too aware of the mechanics of the game if you allow that.
Unless a foe is at least trained in a spellcasting skill or have done research on you, they should know jack s@*+ about you or your capabilities, and even less about what's a high level or low level spell.
Specially orcs with -1 to -2 in intelligence.
In this game system, Point Out is a whole action. So wasting an action for a visual illusion seems fair.
It is unlikely that most monsters will lose more than one or two actions.
But if you are concerned that the effect is too powerful then the GM can hand out circumstance bonuses to the check, or even give out free action checks when the illusion is violated. The GM has the tools he needs to make the level of effect appropriate for your game, without making illusions useless or easily negated.
How do the orcs know that he's level 1? Or that level 1 wizard's can't cast wall of stone? Is it because they themselves are aware that they are only level 0 creatures and couldn't possibly face a foe strong enough to cast wall of stone, because the wizard couldn't be level 9 and face them? Do the orcs know that they're a moderate level encounter ?
You're making your NPCs WAY too aware of the mechanics of the game if you allow that.
Unless a foe is at least trained in a spellcasting skill or have done research on you, they should know jack s#+% about you or your capabilities, and even less about what's a high level or low level spell.
Specially orcs with -1 to -2 in intelligence.
Most players know that, considering that we are speaking of a fictional world we engage only a few hours per week.
Don't you think these orcs who live 24/7 in this world, who experience magic in a near daily basis (cantrips are wildly available) and who have actually seen a Fireball or similar spell being cast should be able to know that creating a wall of stone is high level of magic? Why should these orcs be uterly oblivious to the basic rules of their universe?As to the differences between a level 1 wizard and a level 9 one, it's like recognizing the local police from the military: differences in equipment and combat tactics. Just look on the internet the way level 1 characters and level 10 or 20 characters are depicted, and you'll see obvious differences. So, unless the wizard is trying to look stronger than they are, it should be somewhat easy to recognize their level.
Now, it's not 100% sure, but when you combine someone who looks like an apprentice wizard, who fights like an apprentice wizard and who summons a wall of stone out of thin air, I expect most orcs to think that this doesn't add up.
How do the orcs know that he's level 1? Or that level 1 wizard's can't cast wall of stone? Is it because they themselves are aware that they are only level 0 creatures and couldn't possibly face a foe strong enough to cast wall of stone, because the wizard couldn't be level 9 and face them? Do the orcs know that they're a moderate level encounter ?
You're making your NPCs WAY too aware of the mechanics of the game if you allow that.
Unless a foe is at least trained in a spellcasting skill or have done research on you, they should know jack s#+% about you or your capabilities, and even less about what's a high level or low level spell.
Specially orcs with -1 to -2 in intelligence.
Most players know that, considering that we are speaking of a fictional world we engage only a few hours per week.
Don't you think these orcs who live 24/7 in this world, who experience magic in a near daily basis (cantrips are wildly available) and who have actually seen a Fireball or similar spell being cast should be able to know that creating a wall of stone is high level of magic? Why should these orcs be uterly oblivious to the basic rules of their universe?As to the differences between a level 1 wizard and a level 9 one, it's like recognizing the local police from the military: differences in equipment and combat tactics. Just look on the internet the way level 1 characters and level 10 or 20 characters are depicted, and you'll see obvious differences. So, unless the wizard is trying to look stronger than he is, it should be somewhat easy to recognize their level.
Now, it's not 100% sure, but when you combine someone who looks like an apprentice wizard, who fights like an apprentice wizard and who summons a wall of stone out of thin air, I expect most orcs to think that this doesn't add up.
The orcs don't know they are in a fictional world or a game with balanced encounters. Its very likely the first thing they see of the wizard is the illusionary wall.
How do the orcs know that he's level 1? Or that level 1 wizard's can't cast wall of stone? Is it because they themselves are aware that they are only level 0 creatures and couldn't possibly face a foe strong enough to cast wall of stone, because the wizard couldn't be level 9 and face them? Do the orcs know that they're a moderate level encounter ?
You're making your NPCs WAY too aware of the mechanics of the game if you allow that.
Unless a foe is at least trained in a spellcasting skill or have done research on you, they should know jack s#+% about you or your capabilities, and even less about what's a high level or low level spell.
Specially orcs with -1 to -2 in intelligence.
Most players know that, considering that we are speaking of a fictional world we engage only a few hours per week.
Don't you think these orcs who live 24/7 in this world, who experience magic in a near daily basis (cantrips are wildly available) and who have actually seen a Fireball or similar spell being cast should be able to know that creating a wall of stone is high level of magic? Why should these orcs be uterly oblivious to the basic rules of their universe?As to the differences between a level 1 wizard and a level 9 one, it's like recognizing the local police from the military: differences in equipment and combat tactics. Just look on the internet the way level 1 characters and level 10 or 20 characters are depicted, and you'll see obvious differences. So, unless the wizard is trying to look stronger than he is, it should be somewhat easy to recognize their level.
Now, it's not 100% sure, but when you combine someone who looks like an apprentice wizard, who fights like an apprentice wizard and who summons a wall of stone out of thin air, I expect most orcs to think that this doesn't add up.
You're using the "rational actor" argument and it's s$%! in macro economy and it's s!%+ here too.
Orcs tend to live in secluded tribal settings with very poor exchange of information (the typical ones at least) and thus would not have this near omniscient understanding of their environments. If they had seen a fireball being cast, they would probably not be alive because they would have been a target of it.
As for the way spellcasters dress, they would most likely have no unit of comparison between the two, living a secluded lifestyle.
Now a lot of orcs don't live in that tribal way in golarions and are actually quite smart and knowledgeful.
If only the game had given us a way to differentiate what each Npc knows...
Oh wait it has.
The assumptions you're making can EASILY be factual if your talking about, say, the orcs
alchemists from fall of plaguestone, because they're freaking trained in crafting and arcana (and even then it would be a RK check). Or the scrapwall orcs because they go to a colosseum to see death matches against a troll (but even then, probly still a RK check) on a weekly basis.
What you're saying isn't saying like "look it's easy for us to tell the difference between those two" we have internet and live in the information age and are all highly educated actors, and even then : **Gesticulates to pandemic ridden world around**
Your assumption is the same as if I just showed up to a secluded south american tribe with limited civilisation contact and assumed them to be able to tell between me and my old boss who has the most successful company at a glance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The orcs don't know they are in a fictional world or a game with balanced encounters. Its very likely the first thing they see of the wizard is the illusionary wall.
No, the first thing they see of the Wizard is it's equipment. Have they an intricate staff or just a basic one? A robe of Eyes or one you can buy in the local market?
And when the Wizard acts, do they move at a 40ft. speed or just the basic 25ft. speed everyone has? Have they rolled so high in initiative that they nearly ended their spell before the orcs even reacted?Then, they see the casting: basic casting or world shattering one?
Finaly, they see the illusionary wall. At that stage, they had a lot of information to make an educated guess.
What I've described is all the questions the players will ask if they end up in the same situation.
Being in a fictional world is not relevant here, and balanced encounters are only for PCs, not NPCs.