Solid Shadows <---- something like this?
Shadowcaster Or this?
Tenebrous Spell This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but this makes your CL and DC increase and the spell itself is stronger vs Dispel checks. This isn't making a shadow "more real" per se, but it makes it "tougher".
Define what you mean?
I have to assume you're not talking about shadow line of spells because those are already partially real. And enemies wouldn't want to outright ignore a spell that's partially real, at least not the way they would ignore an illusion they know is an illusion.
Bear in mind that when you cast, if someone can see you cast and has the right knowledge(arcana/spellcraft) they will know what spell you cast.
If you just want to maximize the effect of your shadow spells, Ryze suggestion of Solid Shadows will do the trick. And the shadowcaster archetype will also help if you haven't built the character yet.
Can you be more specific about what effect you want?
|
Define what you mean?
I have to assume you're not talking about shadow line of spells because those are already partially real. And enemies wouldn't want to outright ignore a spell that's partially real, at least not the way they would ignore an illusion they know is an illusion.
Bear in mind that when you cast, if someone can see you cast and has the right knowledge(arcana/spellcraft) they will know what spell you cast.
If you just want to maximize the effect of your shadow spells, Ryze suggestion of Solid Shadows will do the trick. And the shadowcaster archetype will also help if you haven't built the character yet.
Can you be more specific about what effect you want?
Sure what I'm after is appearance more than effect. That is my understanding of shadowspells is that what is created is visibly not real faded, translucent, shadowy. However you play it there is a distinct visual difference between something created with shadow spells compared to a real thing. I'm looking for a way to make what is created to look real, doesn't need to actually be any more real than normal when someone actually interacts with it just not give an immediate visual que that its not a real thing. I could be overreading but this line in shadow conjuration . . .
A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.
makes me think even if a creature doesn't succeed on the save will have a way to distinguish shadow creature from illusion or normal creature. I just want to bring it more in line with a normal illusion for appearance unless someone makes their save.
While I appreciate Ryze's suggestions they're all about making something more real for interactions i.e. having more body rather than looking more real.
Senko, I would respectfully disagree with you and point out that the line your worried about says "a creature that succeeds on its save".
Prior to the creature making their save, they don't know if it's an illusion (including the shadow subtype). Barring the successful save, I would say it looks as real as the mind of the caster can make it. Which is to say, if they've never see a dragon before (even drawn), trying to make an illusion of a dragon might not work very well.
Also keep in mind that casually seeing an illusion typically isn't enough to get a save, and instead requires some amount of interaction, whether that's carefully studying it or whatever other action they might take. Of course, that's dependent on your GM and how they run illusions. But the parts that clear (to me) is that without a save it's not obviously an illusion.
So, I would say baseline that the illusion looks as real as the limits of the spell allow. And I say it that way become some illusion spells don't allow for movement, speech, sound, temperature, etc as part of the illusion. So if for example you conjured an illusion of a massive fire, people might quickly notice that there is no smell of smoke, no sound of burning/crackling, and no heat if you only used silent image to create it.
Yeah Senko, I'm gonna piggyback on what Claxon just said, Illusion spells are very, very real looking. They're so real in fact that the world's greatest heroes (the PC's) need to make Saving Throws to even disbelieve them, and if they fail that save then they certainly believe that it is indeed real. Shadow spells are the same thing, they're so real that you have to pass a crazy save to even disbelieve them, otherwise you earnestly believe that the illusion is a real object/creature.
Furthermore, you're not even allowed to make a save until you interact with the illusion. That's how "real" these illusions/shadow spells are. The GM could be describing various things in a room, and you as the PC would have no idea that one of these various things is an illusion/shadow until you walk up and touch it, or attack it, or otherwise interact with the illusion/shadow somehow.
That is my understanding of shadowspells is that what is created is visibly not real faded, translucent, shadowy.
It would look like that AFTER you've successfully disbelieved it.
The description of shadow conjuration states “A creature that succeeds on the save sees the shadow conjuration as transparent images superimposed on vague shadowy forms”. It also states “creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength”.
Like any illusion you only get a save if you actually interact with the illusion. So, creatures who do not interact with the illusion see them as real. Those that interact with the illusion and fail the save see them as real. Only those that interact with the illusion and make the save see them as transparent images superimposed and vague shadowy forms.
|
|
So how do they see a shadow creature normally? Is it indistinguishable from a real one?
The part that concerns me (given some GM's I've had) is this talks about failed saves and interactions but gives no guidance on a normal visual look. I've known people who'd argue even if you can't tell its a shadow you can tell it apart from the original because it looks less real or sickly.
The "normal visual look" is exactly that of what it is pretending to be.
If you were summoning shadows that looked like shadows, then literally everyone would disbelieve it... because it's a freaking a shadow. No. What you summon looks exactly like the real thing... so real, in fact, shadow weapons can cause real damage.
Exactly like the real thing, unless they make their save [AFTER interacting with it].
|
|
It may seem excessive but I have had DM's who'll tell me I didn't see a 20 foot tall statue in a dining room because there's poor lighting only from our torches and lightning strikes outside prior to its attacking me when we were searching the dining room for clues for how we got there. Forgive my paranoia.
It sounds like your GM was mistaken in how the spells work. Shadow spells are partially real things created from extradimensional energy. They can actually create real effects. A floor created with a shadow spell can actually support a creature walking on it. In the case of shadow conjuration there is a 20% chance of it being able to support something walking on it. Higher level shadow spells have a higher chance and things like solid shadows can increase the chance.
Yeah… as the others have stated… prior to a save being made everyone that sees the shadow creature will see it as the exact creature it is pretending to be. Your illusion is indistinguishable from the real deal when merely seen. If a target takes a standard action to observe the creature, attacks the creature, is attacked by the creature, or in any other way interacts with the creature, they can make their save. If they fail their save then nothing changes, they still see the illusion as what you defined it to be. If they succeed THEN AND ONLY THEN do they see it for what it actually is.
If your DM is describing shadow conjurations as shadow demons or anything other than what you defined as their illusionary form, then they are nerfing illusions, either deliberately or accidentally. I would recommend discussing things with them and informing them of the correct rules for illusions before going forwards. If they are doing this deliberately, then it may be time to find a new DM.
So how do they see a shadow creature normally? Is it indistinguishable from a real one?
The part that concerns me (given some GM's I've had) is this talks about failed saves and interactions but gives no guidance on a normal visual look. I've known people who'd argue even if you can't tell its a shadow you can tell it apart from the original because it looks less real or sickly.
I wouldn't say it's indistinguishable, as that implies there are no differences. And if there really were "no" differences then I would say it would be impossible to succeed on a will save against the illusion by only visually studying it and not interacting in some other way that wouldn't obviously give away that it's an illusion. But we know studying it (as a move action) is enough to grant the save to see if you disbelieve it, so there has to be subtle clues that it's not the real deal.
I like to imagine these things look 95% of the real thing, but narratively I would say it's also limited by how familiar the caster is with such a thing.
Yeah… as the others have stated… prior to a save being made everyone that sees the shadow creature will see it as the exact creature it is pretending to be. Your illusion is indistinguishable from the real deal when merely seen. If a target takes a standard action to observe the creature, attacks the creature, is attacked by the creature, or in any other way interacts with the creature, they can make their save. If they fail their save then nothing changes, they still see the illusion as what you defined it to be. If they succeed THEN AND ONLY THEN do they see it for what it actually is.
If your DM is describing shadow conjurations as shadow demons or anything other than what you defined as their illusionary form, then they are nerfing illusions, either deliberately or accidentally. I would recommend discussing things with them and informing them of the correct rules for illusions before going forwards. If they are doing this deliberately, then it may be time to find a new DM.
Honestly, illusions have a hard enough time because of accidental nerfs and separating metagame knowledge from character knowledge/reactions. Illusion magic is simply one of those things I largely ignore because it's so hard to know how any given thing will work.
Shadow magic actually somewhat gets around that because you know even if they disbelieve your spell it's still 20%+ effective and the shadow magic tends to be very versatile in what you can do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always figured an illusion showed what the caster though the subject of the illusion though it should look like. The Rashomon effect gives the target a saving throw because what the caster imagines the subject to be might not match up with the target of the illusion view of what it should be.
I always figured an illusion showed what the caster though the subject of the illusion though it should look like. The Rashomon effect gives the target a saving throw because what the caster imagines the subject to be might not match up with the target of the illusion view of what it should be.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. Or simply that the detail of the thing the casters thinks of is simply less than the real thing has. And when someone starts studying the illusion, they start to pick up on it.
|
|
I always figured an illusion showed what the caster though the subject of the illusion though it should look like. The Rashomon effect gives the target a saving throw because what the caster imagines the subject to be might not match up with the target of the illusion view of what it should be.Yeah, I pretty much agree. Or simply that the detail of the thing the casters thinks of is simply less than the real thing has. And when someone starts studying the illusion, they start to pick up on it.
Whichever it is the fact that there is a way to tell from looking is my concern and why I was wondering if there was a way to make them seem more real in a suppliment somewhere. I think spheres of power has a feat or something that lets an illusion force a second save to disbelieve or the like but that's sort of a seperate system.
Spell Focus Illusion and Greater Spell Focus Illusion will increase the DC of the spell and make it harder to spot the spell. That is probably the best you are going to get. If you are a gnome, you also increase the DC of the save of illusions.
Don’t forget that you don’t even get a save unless you directly interact with the illusion. Just looking at the illusion is not enough you have to study it carefully (use a move action) to even get the save. A quick glance is not going to allow a save. You could use a silent image to cover the mouth of a big cave and people riding by it will usually not get a save. If they are moving slowly and searching the cliff where the cave is located, they will get a save, but if they are ridding by, they don’t. Shadow spells are still illusions, so they operate by the same rules.
Whichever it is the fact that there is a way to tell from looking is my concern and why I was wondering if there was a way to make them seem more real in a suppliment somewhere. I think spheres of power has a feat or something that lets an illusion force a second save to disbelieve or the like but that's sort of a seperate system.I always figured an illusion showed what the caster though the subject of the illusion though it should look like. The Rashomon effect gives the target a saving throw because what the caster imagines the subject to be might not match up with the target of the illusion view of what it should be.Yeah, I pretty much agree. Or simply that the detail of the thing the casters thinks of is simply less than the real thing has. And when someone starts studying the illusion, they start to pick up on it.
So Senko, yes they can tell from "looking" but remember literally any action targeted at the illusion allows for a save. So it's not just seeing the illusion that grants a save, the observer has to spend an action to study it. Simply seeing it is not enough of an interaction to grant a save, it's part of the rules on illusions. So casual observers of illusion spells never get a chance to disbelieve.
And studying it to tell if it's an illusion takes as much effort as shooting it with a ranged weapon or hitting it with a melee weapon (if already adjacent).
Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed.
There is nothing in the rules (I'm aware of) that changes the paradigm of spending an action to interact with the illusion to be granted a save.
So, observer who spends no action totally believes the illusion is real, never has a chance to disbelieve.
Observer who spends an action, has a chance to realize it's an illusion but it's not guaranteed.
Edit: Sorry forgot we were talking 1st edition and I quoted second edition rules, but it's a good guideline for GMs that you need to spend some sort of action to interact with the illusion before getting a save.
The 1e rules for clarity
All three of the subschools above tend to have saving throw lines that say “Will disbelief,” but they differ in how those saving throws apply.
Phantasms directly assail a creature’s mind, so the creature automatically and immediately receives a saving throw to disbelieve a phantasm. Figments and glamers, however, have the more difficult-to-adjudicate rule that creatures receive a saving throw to disbelieve only if they “interact” with the illusion.
But what does it mean to interact with an illusion? It can’t just mean looking at the illusion, as otherwise there would be no need to make the distinction, but drawing the line can be a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules can help to define that difference. A creature that spends a move action to carefully study an illusion receives a Will saving throw to disbelieve that illusion, so that is a good benchmark from which to work.
Using that as a basis, interacting generally means spending a move action, standard action, or greater on a character’s part. For example, if there were a major image of an ogre, a character who tried to attack the ogre would receive a saving throw to disbelieve, as would a character who spent 1 minute attempting a Diplomacy check on the ogre. A character who just traded witty banter with the ogre as a free action would not, nor would a character who simply cast spells on herself or her allies and never directly confronted the illusory ogre. For a glamer, interacting generally works the same as for a figment, except that the interaction must be limited to something the glamer affects. For instance, grabbing a creature’s ear would be an interaction for a human using disguise self to appear as an elf, but not for someone using a glamer to change his hair color. Similarly, visually studying someone would not grant a save against a glamer that purely changed her voice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a shadow is still an illusion. An illusion with substance, but still an illusion. The important thing though is that unless someone puts forth the effort (spend an action) specifically to determine if it is an illusion or not, they do NOT get a save just by seeing it, nor are there any sort of obvious tells. If your DM says “you create shadowy copies of ____” politely remind them that is NOT how the spell works. You didn't create a shadowy image, you created an ordinary illusion and then gave it some solid substance from the shadow plane, the shaodw stuff is hidden INSIDE the illusion.
|
|
Yes, a shadow is still an illusion. An illusion with substance, but still an illusion. The important thing though is that unless someone puts forth the effort (spend an action) specifically to determine if it is an illusion or not, they do NOT get a save just by seeing it, nor are there any sort of obvious tells. If your DM says “you create shadowy copies of ____” politely remind them that is NOT how the spell works. You didn't create a shadowy image, you created an ordinary illusion and then gave it some solid substance from the shadow plane, the shaodw stuff is hidden INSIDE the illusion.
I'm just pondering how you'd interact with a physical thing (aside from taking reduced damage) to realize its a different semi-physical thing.
I'm just pondering how you'd interact with a physical thing (aside from taking reduced damage) to realize its a different semi-physical thing.
Thats just it, only the shadow within the illusion is semi-physical… when you go to attack it you might notice that your blade passes through most of the creature without any resistance before suddenly it feels like you’ve hit something… or when it attacks you, a claw might sink into your chest effortlessly and without pain before a sharp stabbing pain hits you as the creature forearm presses deeper. When spending an action to study it, you might see part of the creature pass through a solid object.
In effect, it appears normal and solid until interacted with, at which point you receive a save from noticing an abnormality. If you pass, you recognize it as an illusion, if you fail, you assume your eyes were playing tricks on you.
I mean, if it's an illusion of a summoned creature with shadow magic (is that possible?) then it could be attack and feel less substantial than a real creature should.
I can't give you one statement that fits all scenarios, but there should be something that gives the illusion away.
What's harder to reconcile is that if they don't disbelieve the illusion, it's treated as completely real. It's hard to reconcile the experience of one creature who will feel the full effects if they fail the save vs a creature that successfully saves. They have different experiences of the same thing. We don't know what allows one creature to realize it's an illusion vs the other.
Maybe someone with a better imagination can come up with something.
I mean, if it's an illusion of a summoned creature with shadow magic (is that possible?)
Shadow conjuration does exactly this.
What's harder to reconcile is that if they don't disbelieve the illusion, it's treated as completely real. It's hard to reconcile the experience of one creature who will feel the full effects if they fail the save vs a creature that successfully saves. They have different experiences of the same thing. We don't know what allows one creature to realize it's an illusion vs the other.
This is actually why illusions have rules for additional saves. If one enemy recognizes it as an illusion, they can alert their allies allowing those who failed a new save at +2. If they can prove it is an illusion the bonus improves to +4. (i think it was +4)
What I was talking about is the subjective experience of each individual, if one fails the save they experience it as it's full intensity (instead of say 20% on a successful save).
It's harder for me to imagine what that 20% experience is like vs a non-shadow illusion where you either experience it or don't. And in the case of something like a visual only illusion you can have proof it's an illusion (like hitting it and you feeling no resistance and walking through it) though you still don't "disbelieve" it so you can't see through it.
The whole thing of getting additional saves with a bonus isn't so important to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was talking about is the subjective experience of each individual, if one fails the save they experience it as it's full intensity (instead of say 20% on a successful save).
It's harder for me to imagine what that 20% experience is like vs a non-shadow illusion where you either experience it or don't. And in the case of something like a visual only illusion you can have proof it's an illusion (like hitting it and you feeling no resistance and walking through it) though you still don't "disbelieve" it so you can't see through it.
The whole thing of getting additional saves with a bonus isn't so important to me.
Think of illusions like a haunted house park attraction. One person might be scared by everything inside, even though it is all fake. Meanwhile the person next to them is completely unfazed. When we add in shadow illusions to the mix, it is like adding some practical effects and physical jump scares to the haunted house. The second person might not be scared of anything inside but the jump scares and practical effects will still get them.
Translated to how they would be in the game world…
Player A sees through the illusion and realizes the Balor demon is not really a Balor demon but a shadowy immitation. They still know it is a real threat, just not as big of a threat as they first thought.
Player B failed their save and believes it to really be a Balor demon. Shadow illusions operate on a mind over matter philosophy, so long as you believe it to be real it is 100% real.
Its no so much trying to imagine one having an experience that is only 20% real while the other has an experience that is 100% real… rather the one experiencing the 20% is the one experiencing the true reality while the other is trapped in an illusion.
To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.
From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.
To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.
From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.
Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.
Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.
From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.
Can you show where that is stated in the rules? I have never seen that before and the section on illusion does not mention that.
Can you show where that is stated in the rules? I have never seen that before and the section on illusion does not mention that.Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.
From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.
Source PRPG Core Rulebook
Definition Type Subschool
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Even if a pattern were to have a “save if interacted with” line it would still trigger an automatic save upon being seen, because simply SEEING a pattern is enough to be affected by it, and therefore interacted with.
Patterns like colorspray that only affect those inside them similarly trigger automatic saves regardless of if they were to say “if interacted with” since being inside the affected area is enough to be affected by it. Sure, seeing those ones wouldn't trigger a save, but at the same time, this type of pattern wouldn't even make sense for most shadow spells. Sure it would logically fit for something lime Shadow Evocation: Fireball, but those shadow spells are directly interacting with the target immediately anyways and already trigger an automatic save.|
|
I mean, if it's an illusion of a summoned creature with shadow magic (is that possible?) then it could be attack and feel less substantial than a real creature should.
I can't give you one statement that fits all scenarios, but there should be something that gives the illusion away.
What's harder to reconcile is that if they don't disbelieve the illusion, it's treated as completely real. It's hard to reconcile the experience of one creature who will feel the full effects if they fail the save vs a creature that successfully saves. They have different experiences of the same thing. We don't know what allows one creature to realize it's an illusion vs the other.
Maybe someone with a better imagination can come up with something.
It's a tricky thing with some examples to be sure. One way I can think of is you get hit by a shadowy blade slicing at your flesh. If you believe it then get a large cut into say your arm from the weapon (or in my case a window I broke accidentally which left a scar that persist to this day) whereas if you disblieve/save then you only get a small slice as if from a paper cut which while more painful is much shallower and less damaging as its doing 20% damage.
I guess I was still unclear though, narratively I'm wondering what exists as part of the illusion that one person pierces and the other doesn't?
Though perhaps there's nothing external to it, and it's nothing to do with the illusion itself and all to do with the mental fortitude of the viewer/recipient.
Mechanically it doesn't matter, but I'm curious about the narrative.
No, just seeing is not enough to be counted as interacting with it. Seeing an illusion is not enough to be considered interacting with it, you actually have to interact with it in some way. In the case of color spray you are interacting because it is being used to attack you. In one of your earlier posts you stated “they do NOT get a save just by seeing it”. That is and remains a true statement.
In this instance it is a moot point because we are talking about why something would take full damage form an illusion. Being attacked by something or attacking it is enough to be considered interacting with it. Anyone who is taking damage from an illusion will get a saving throw for interacting with it.
Likewise the fact an illusion is a mind affecting effect does not automatically grant it a saving throw. The target of the illusion still has to interact with the illusion. The only difference is that a creature immune to mind affecting effects is immune to illusions that are mind affecting effects.
No, just seeing is not enough to be counted as interacting with it. Seeing an illusion is not enough to be considered interacting with it, you actually have to interact with it in some way. In the case of color spray you are interacting because it is being used to attack you. In one of your earlier posts you stated “they do NOT get a save just by seeing it”. That is and remains a true statement.
In this instance it is a moot point because we are talking about why something would take full damage form an illusion. Being attacked by something or attacking it is enough to be considered interacting with it. Anyone who is taking damage from an illusion will get a saving throw for interacting with it.
Likewise the fact an illusion is a mind affecting effect does not automatically grant it a saving throw. The target of the illusion still has to interact with the illusion. The only difference is that a creature immune to mind affecting effects is immune to illusions that are mind affecting effects.
Allow me to put it a different way to properly clear up your misconception here. Many illusions, not all, have the save when interacted with clause. These, and only these, illusions get no automatic save upon simply being seen. You get a save if the illusion is interacted with in any way involving you, be that you personally interacting with the illusion, taking an action to examine it, or the illusion interacting with you. Patterns trigger an automatic save not only because they lack the “if interacted with” clause, but because even if they were to have that clause, patterns interact with their targets and not the other way around.
If you glance a prismatic wall, it affects you and you get a save. You don’t just ignore its effects until you make a conscious effort to interact with it. Nor do you suffer its effects with no save until you put forth the effort to interact with it. The moment your eyes saw the prismatic wall, the wall interacted with you and you are making a save vs its effects.
Prismatic Wall is a bad example because that is an abjuration and not an illusion, and it doesn't do anything to anyone unless you are within 20ft of the wall (so those more than 20ft away don't get a save until they are within range or otherwise interact with the wall).
I am guessing you meant something more like using greater shadow evocation to replicate prismatic spray. But still, creatures outside the specified area aren't interacting with the spell (essentially the spell can be considered to be attack all creatures within range) and it's not really about seeing the spell that does anything.
Phantasm may also be the class of spell you're thinking of, but they also fall under an attack IMO.
I could have sworn prismatic wall was under illusion (pattern) before… but apparently the only pattern spell that even relies on being seen is dazzling blade… all others either affect all creatures in their area of affect or do nothing until someone tries to pass through them… which is fairly contrary to the actual rules for Patterns I quoted earlier.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
The above section is straight from the core rule book under illusion school. It is right after the sections detailing all the sub-schools. So, the default for illusion spells is that the creature viewing the illusion does not get a save until the study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. Seeing something is not the same thing as studying it carefully. The only illusion spells that automatically get a save are those that specify they do in the description of the spell.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
The section on patterns does not mention anything about saves. All it says is that it creates an image others can see, but also affects the mind of those who see it. Since there is no mention of saves patterns follow the general rule on saves that all other illusions follow, which is they only get a save when studied carefully or interacted with. Even Phantasms follow that rule, and they are all in the mind.
Some illusion spells may include a sentence stating that you only get a save if you interact with it, but that is a reminder of the rule. RAW you only get a save vs an illusion if you interact with it, unless the spell states otherwise.
The section on patters does not mention anything about saves. All it says is that it creates an image others can see, but also affects the mind of those who see it. Since there is no mention of saves patterns follow the general rule on saves that all other illusions follow, which is they only get a save when studied carefully or interacted with. Even Phantasms follow that rule, and they are all in the mind.
Some illusion spells may include a sentence stating that you only get a save if you interact with it, but that is a reminder of the rule. RAW you only get a save vs an illusion if you interact with it, unless the spell states otherwise.
This is where your misconception is at. The save if interacted with is NOT the base “all illusions follow this” rule. It is an additional rule that applies specifically when a spell calls for disbelief. If the “if interacted with” rule applied across the board without exception to all illusions, then many illusion buffs such as blur would be nearly useless since the moment an enemy attacked you or took a moment to carefully examine you they would get a save to disbelieve the illusion and if successful would see your true position. But thankfully, that is not how those spells work, and I’m sure we can all agree on that fact.
There is one tiny word at the very start of the rule you quoted that you really should pay more attention to than you have, and that word is “usually”. This doesn’t mean always, it doesn’t mean that this is the baseline, it doesn’t even mean that most illusions work this way. What it does mean though is that the most common uses of illusions follow this rule. There are in fact a fairly high number of illusions that either have no save (surprisingly) or have the harmless tag.
In the vast majority of situations this distinction is rather moot, but it is still better to properly understand the rule for when the distinction does in fact matter. Normally, the illusion spell will specifically call out for disbelief (either in the save line or in the spell description) and thus apply the quoted rule, or it will immediately have an affect on the target and trigger a save automatically anyways (behaving like most non-illusion spells). Where the rule does not apply is to cases like Blur, where the subject of the spell can choose to make a save or not but those who are actually subject to the effects of the illusion do not. Shadow Bard is another that the rule does not apply to, a shadow bard performing fascinate or any other harmful bardic performance doesn't allow a foe to make a will save to disbelieve the illusion and therefore suffer a lesser effect. What about Mirrior Image? There is no save here at all. But if we apply the save to disbelieve rule across the board then as stated above with blur someone attacking you could potentially identify the real you after one attack and no longer have to deal with the duplicates.
You might claim that I’m reaching here, but no. These are the actual consequences of applying that rule to all illusions as a baseline. This is why that rule is specifically only for spells that call out disbelief.
Below is the dictionary definition of usually.
u·su·al·ly
[ˈyo͞oZH(o͞o)əlē]
ADVERB
under normal conditions; generally:
So, under normal conditions you only get a save against an illusion if you interact with it. If the spell specifies other conditions that allow a save, or that you don’t get a save those are special (not normal) conditions.
Pattern spells are all different about how the Will Save gets triggered, and it'll say specifically how in the spell description. The general rules of illusions don't really apply to Pattern spells in this instance, because the saves are all different for each pattern spell. For example, Hypnotic Pattern only affects those who are within the 10ft radius of the spell effect. Even though everyone outside of this 10ft radius can clearly see the pattern, nobody makes any Will Saves (unless you're actually inside the effect). Loathsome Veil is also a pattern, and it is 40ft long and 20ft high, but anyone within 60 feet of the "harmful side" of the veil has to make a Will Save. Rainbow Pattern is a 20ft radius spread that moves 30ft/round and you only have to make a Save if the spell effect actually travels through your square; even though everyone outside of this effect can clearly see it, they don't need to make saves.
As far as creating illusions of objects/creatures with Figment spells like Major Image or Instant Fake, you don't get a save until you interact with it. The definition of "Interact" is going to vary from GM to GM, but generally speaking, you have to touch it or attack it. You can spend a few seconds studying it and this will also prompt a Will Save, but that honestly doesn't come up much; you would already have to have a hunch that something was an illusion. The GM is going to describe a room to you and all the various things that are in the room, and you're probably not going to say "I spend a Standard Action to see if this fork is an illusion", "I spend a Standard Action to see if this spoon is an illusion", "I spend a Standard Action to see if the table is an illusion" every time you go into a room; that's going to get old real fast, not only for you but for the other PC's and GM too.
If you were immediately afforded a Will Save the exact second that you see a Figment spell, then Figment spells are essentially worthless. If the PC's start making Will Saves as soon as they enter a room that has a Figment spell active, then the PC's would immediately know there's an illusion nearby even if they fail, and would metagame the crap out of you.
Ryze Juja is right that all pattern spells specify in there description when the save is made. The fact they all have specifics that are overriding the general rule is reinforcing my aurgument. Pattern spells are also mostly used to attack. Any time the illusion is attacking something that qualifies as interacting with the illusion. So, in a since all published pattern spells do allow a save automatically because they are all exceptions to the rule.
The whole argument started because of a post I made in response to claxon comment about creatures taking full damage from a shadow spell if they do not disbelieve the spell. I suggested that one reason could be because the spells were like patterns in that when someone believed they are real their mind caused them to take more damage. Chell Raighn stated that would nerf the spells because all patterns spells automatically get save. I simply disagreed with that and stand by everything I said.