So I thought I understood how illusions worked mechanically in this system but then I've gotten replies or comments on the Internet that make me question this.
Can someone break down how you interact with illusions exactly?
My understanding.
Someone casts illusionary object and now there is a wall between you and the caster.
You have to interact with the illusion (spend an action) to have a chance at making a will save. If you do not pass, you have to continue believing the illusion.
Someone told me that if you see the caster, cast the illusion, you get a free will save without an action
Someone else said that if you touched the wall your hand would go through it so even if you fail the will save you can figure out to walk through the wall
Just trying to figure out the mechanics better before I get to playing my illusionist
My understanding.
Someone casts illusionary object and now there is a wall between you and the caster.
You have to interact with the illusion (spend an action) to have a chance at making a will save. If you do not pass, you have to continue believing the illusion.
That is my understanding as well.
Someone told me that if you see the caster, cast the illusion, you get a free will save without an action
This sounds like edition confusion with PF1. I don't see anything in spellcasting or illusion spells that say that you get a save automatically except when specified in particular spells like Illusory Creature that says if the damage the creature does is too low it may be unbelievable - which could be represented with an automatic perception attempt.
Someone else said that if you touched the wall your hand would go through it so even if you fail the will save you can figure out to walk through the wall
Illusory Object specifically says that you can touch it as a way to interact with it to cause a save to disbelieve. And since you can fail the check, I have to assume that the illusion is at least believably solid to the touch.
I don't think it will prevent forced movement or falling. So you couldn't use Illusory Object to create an illusory bridge that your allies could cross on if they fail their saves when the touch the bridge.
But if an enemy fails the save against an illusory object, the enemy should behave as though the object actually exists.
Of course the better person to ask all of these questions to would be your GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, there will never be universal agreement about what illusions can accomplish or what is the best way to use them. Fundamentally, this will always be a negotiation between you and the GM about what makes the most fun and interesting story for everyone, not what makes you the most or least effective.
Illusion magic is very much about players reshaping the narrative of an encounter (combat/social/chase/infiltration/whatever). Some GMs love this and are very comfortable with it. Other GMs are not and will get defensive as they feel like you are trying to bypass narrative and challenges that they invested a fair bit of planning in, so being an illusionist for the sake of casting big Con-artist style capers will always be a collaborative dance more so than an individual player rewriting the adventure. It is important to talk about this with your GM if you are making an illusionist and discussing some of these boundaries with them before you get your heart broken when your careful plans don't do any of the things you thought they would. This is true for every system that presents illusory magic, not just PF2.
That said, PF2 creates much clearer bounds for illusion spells than past systems and is one where GMs who have previously been resistant to players saying they can use a first level illusory object spell to create an illusion of an ancient dragon in the sky to scare away an army, can finally branch out and not feel like they have to fight with their players every time a player wants to cast an illusion spell.
There are feat chains for players to be able to identify spells as they are being cast. Is it fair for characters in world to expect every spell cast to be an illusion? If so, every summon, battlefield control spell, and other magical effect that is not immediately felt with multiple senses should require actions spent on perception checks to figure out if it is real or not. Detect magic has to be cast at a higher level than the illusion spell too so, that is not the immediate bypass it used to be.
Generally speaking, investigating and seeking are activities that should require actions, and likely non-trivial checks, unless the situation defies the possible (which is pretty difficult to do in a world of high magic).
That said, Illusory object doesn't include sense of touch unless heightened to a second level. so an illusory wall, that someone reaches out and touches, won't feel like anything and that is a pretty big give away. You can't make an illusory bridge that people can cross if they believe it is real, your wall can't physically stop someone from passing through it, but it should generally require a will save for any creature to willingly move through the illusion without interacting with it first.
This is where the GM should be using will saves to represent what is believable to the characters or not, and imposing circumstance penalties or bonuses to those saves based upon the absurdity of believing the illusion is real. "Yeah, I don't think that lava is real" is easy to say, but hard to really force yourself to instantly ignore, even if it feels off to you.
So I thought I understood how illusions worked mechanically in this system but then I've gotten replies or comments on the Internet that make me question this.
Can someone break down how you interact with illusions exactly?
My understanding.
Someone casts illusionary object and now there is a wall between you and the caster.
You have to interact with the illusion (spend an action) to have a chance at making a will save. If you do not pass, you have to continue believing the illusion.
So I will disagree slightly with your wording, you don't have to "continue believing" the illusion but you do fail to disbelieve it. What's the distinction? Well an intelligent enemy, even if they fail the save may still question if something that appears before them is magically conjured or illusion. Especially if the individual is know to use illusion. So a character could try to walk through "wall" and it might work if it's an illusion. But they wouldn't be able to see through it.
As a GM, I would probably force someone to spend an extra action even if they have seen it demonstrated that a wall isn't real, so as not to trivialize illusions too much. And also to represent sort of dissonance between what your mind is trying to get your body to do, and what your instincts are trying to do.
Someone told me that if you see the caster, cast the illusion, you get a free will save without an action
That's not true, but if you can identify spells and successfully identify the spell cast as an illusion spell (sometimes possible as a reaction with the right feats) then I would grant a save.
Even knowing something is an illusion doesn't let you necessarily negate the illusion such as it interfering with your sight, but you wouldn't be acting in the same way knowing it's an illusory wall vs a conjured/wall.
Someone else said that if you touched the wall your hand would go through it so even if you fail the will save you can figure out to walk through the wall
Yeah, when given evidence that something is an illusion it usually should grant a bonus to save against it (again usually just allowing you to see through it) but you can act on the knowledge even on a failed save, at least IMO.
This is why illusions are most effective when done out of sight of someone you're trying to fool.
Just trying to figure out the mechanics better before I get to playing my illusionist
Good luck...illusions are hard to run well for a GM and hard require a lot of imagination on the part of a player. I've always avoided them for those reasons.
This is why I'm here. To get what RAW there is, the DM and I can work this out beyond that.
Only a 1st level Illusory Object would be able to be touched to determine it's not real. 2nd level and higher feel right to the touch, so you'd need to be pushed through by forced movement.
Yes and no. It feels right to the touch, but an enemy who is suspicious might try to hit a wall with their weapon instead, which would go through the non-existent wall and let you know something wasn't right.
The lesson there is, if you're trying to test if something is real or illusion don't rely solely on senses that can be easily fooled. A weapon swinging through a wall cannot feel the wall and will reveal the truth.
A GM might very well resolve that by asking for an attack roll but actually be checking it as a will save. How often do you see a caster cast a wall of stone and immediately start trying to attack it?
I think the better use of illusory object is usually to make an object that points the enemy in the direction you want them to move and doesn’t present an impossible barrier to them.
“Oh, that wall decides me from my allies, but I can spend 3 move actions to get to the other side of it, and three more to get back into the fray, that seems like a more reasonable plan than trying to break through it.”
GMs are usually willing to have enemies play into that and it can set up chock points, bunches for AoE targeting or just waste several actions. Generally folks push back against impossible, but readily accept another inconvenience.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone told me that if you see the caster, cast the illusion, you get a free will save without an actionThis sounds like edition confusion with PF1. I don't see anything in spellcasting or illusion spells that say that you get a save automatically
The Disbelieving IIIlusions” sidebar states that “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.”
I can cite zero rules authority for this, but as a GM, if a PC identities the spell, I’d probably apply that rule for that character. But simply seeing “a spell” cast wouldn’t cut it in my opinion, because if you don’t know what spell was cast, you’d have no reason to believe it’s an illusion.
Of course the better person to ask all of these questions to would be your GM.
But doctor, I am Pagliaci.
For what it's worth, I had an enemy caster drop a wall of stone in the middle of a salon, cutting the party in two, and yes they did indeed immediately start trying to hack their way through the wall. I would not regard it as an unreasonable response, though in a situation where going around is a more accessible option, that would probably be the option chosen by most NPCs
Yes but that's because any self-respecting barbarian brings their maul to the salon. Because you know if the scones run out it's going down.
Oh, absolutely. For a host to allow the scones to run out is a flagrant disregard of hospitality norms and it demands a measured response proportionate to the severity of the infraction. (and they said Barbarians couldn't be lawful)
A GM might very well resolve that by asking for an attack roll but actually be checking it as a will save. How often do you see a caster cast a wall of stone and immediately start trying to attack it?
I think the better use of illusory object is usually to make an object that points the enemy in the direction you want them to move and doesn’t present an impossible barrier to them.
“Oh, that wall decides me from my allies, but I can spend 3 move actions to get to the other side of it, and three more to get back into the fray, that seems like a more reasonable plan than trying to break through it.”
GMs are usually willing to have enemies play into that and it can set up chock points, bunches for AoE targeting or just waste several actions. Generally folks push back against impossible, but readily accept another inconvenience.
Absolutely, if you create the illusion of an impassable barrier I'm more inclined to attack it than if you create an illusion of a inconvenient barrier. Make it so that I immediately start spending actions to get around it, rather than testing if it's real.
The Disbelieving IIIlusions” sidebar states that “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.”
I can cite zero rules authority for this, but as a GM, if a PC identities the spell, I’d probably apply that rule for that character. But simply seeing “a spell” cast wouldn’t cut it in my opinion, because if you don’t know what spell was cast, you’d have no reason to believe it’s an illusion.
Yeah, I wanted to cite this before but couldn't remember where it was located.
And it's important to remember that by default, to identify a spell cast is an action performed on your turn with recall knowledge of the appropriate tradition. Some characters could invest in identification of spells (using Recognize Spell feat) as a reaction, but it shouldn't be very common.
But this is what I was essentially trying to say, that even if you're given proof that something is an illusion you still experiencing the illusion normally, such as a wall blocking line of site. But with the knowledge you have you could walk through it.
This does make me think, an illusion of fog as part of trap which your party has already disbelieved could be a very effective tool.
So one issue my GM is struggling to understand is how spell level 2 illusory object states it has the correct feel of the object you created.
Example I gave is a wall. Someone tells the other enemy that was is fake.
But they didn't pass the check, the wall feels like a wall
How can you feel a wall but also be able to pass through it?
My thought was illusory creature. Essentially what that spell is doing as far as I can tell. Is causing the enemies mind to turn against them, they see and believe the illusion at when it attacks them, they are essentially doing mental damage to themselves by being tricked.
So if they haven't passed a check on this wall illusion, and someone tells them it's an illusion, but it feels it a wall
Does this mean they walk into a wall they can't go through under their own power? Because you them it feels like a wall?
So one issue my GM is struggling to understand is how spell level 2 illusory object states it has the correct feel of the object you created.
Example I gave is a wall. Someone tells the other enemy that was is fake.
But they didn't pass the check, the wall feels like a wall
How can you feel a wall but also be able to pass through it?
My thought was illusory creature. Essentially what that spell is doing as far as I can tell. Is causing the enemies mind to turn against them, they see and believe the illusion at when it attacks them, they are essentially doing mental damage to themselves by being tricked.
So if they haven't passed a check on this wall illusion, and someone tells them it's an illusion, but it feels it a wall
Does this mean they walk into a wall they can't go through under their own power? Because you them it feels like a wall?
It's hard to rectify the mental dissonance because we don't have magic to have that "innate" understanding. With illusory object at level 2 providing feel, you get the sensory input it's a wall. If you don't know it's an illusion you should treat it as a real wall.
But if you've been given proof that it's not real, I would say you can walk through it but you will have a conflict of knowledge vs instinct. As a GM, I would make this take an extra action. What the subjective experience of the individual doing it is... I can't say.
But I wouldn't let the illusory wall stop someone who has been given proof the wall isn't real and is trying to go through it.
So one issue my GM is struggling to understand is how spell level 2 illusory object states it has the correct feel of the object you created.
Example I gave is a wall. Someone tells the other enemy that was is fake.
But they didn't pass the check, the wall feels like a wall
How can you feel a wall but also be able to pass through it?
My thought was illusory creature. Essentially what that spell is doing as far as I can tell. Is causing the enemies mind to turn against them, they see and believe the illusion at when it attacks them, they are essentially doing mental damage to themselves by being tricked.
So if they haven't passed a check on this wall illusion, and someone tells them it's an illusion, but it feels it a wall
Does this mean they walk into a wall they can't go through under their own power? Because you them it feels like a wall?
It's hard to rectify the mental dissonance because we don't have magic to have that "innate" understanding. With illusory object at level 2 providing feel, you get the sensory input it's a wall. If you don't know it's an illusion you should treat it as a real wall.
But if you've been given proof that it's not real, I would say you can walk through it but you will have a conflict of knowledge vs instinct. As a GM, I would make this take an extra action. What the subjective experience of the individual doing it is... I can't say.
But I wouldn't let the illusory wall stop someone who has been given proof the wall isn't real and is trying to go through it.
Narratively I could see how you would not let that person willfully walk through the wall even after seeing someone else go through it, because they haven't disbelieved in the wall, so it feels like a wall.
They saw the person go through, they try, it feels solid, their brain won't let them force there way through what they perceive as a solid wall
Now, is that fair mechanically and for balance? That bit I don't know.
I don't think it's broken, enemies tend to have decent perception so they have a decent chance of disbelief.
I rather like illusions being useful and having (relatively) firmer rules.
Heck that's the reason I'm even trying an illusionist wizard, because if the more solid mechanics
This thread is more just to help myself and my GM get a better idea of how to run those edge cases and not feel like either of us are becoming competitive against each other lol
The sense of touch is even more important for things that have temperature effects or an environmental impact.
A level 1 illusory fog isn’t going to feel at all like being in fog. That is likely grounds for making the action of moving into it an automatic opportunity to disbelieve. An illusion of a fire place is going to have no heat. But a level 2 one will. It won’t cause damage, but an illusory pit of lava is going to feel hot standing next to it and miss creatures who see a caster bring that into being aren’t going to question that unless something very, very important is on the line and there is literally no other way to accomplish that goal.
I really do think the key to getting GM buy in with illusions, and getting them to work the way you expect is not to try to use them to fully thwart your enemies, but lead them somewhere narratively that they (and your GM) will want them to go. This is true of slight of hand in the real world too.
The sense of touch is even more important for things that have temperature effects or an environmental impact.
A level 1 illusory fog isn’t going to feel at all like being in fog. That is likely grounds for making the action of moving into it an automatic opportunity to disbelieve. An illusion of a fire place is going to have no heat. But a level 2 one will. It won’t cause damage, but an illusory pit of lava is going to feel hot standing next to it and miss creatures who see a caster bring that into being aren’t going to question that unless something very, very important is on the line and there is literally no other way to accomplish that goal.
I really do think the key to getting GM buy in with illusions, and getting them to work the way you expect is not to try to use them to fully thwart your enemies, but lead them somewhere narratively that they (and your GM) will want them to go. This is true of slight of hand in the real world too.
What do you mean by automatic opportunity?
Do you mean free action?
Or obvious call to spend an action?
We were discussing if temperature was considered feeling.
Lava feels hot, if you touch it, it's so hot it hurts. But this spell doesn't hurt you even at higher casting. So my only good faith thought is either
Temperature is not a sense of touch in this regard
Or
There is an upper limit, they fall into the lava, the scream, it's hot, they realize it's not burning them. (Free call to spend an action to disbelieve)
Another question!
We have established that spell level 2 illusory object but not spell level 1 in the same circumstance
Spell level 2 so long as they fail to disbelieve the illusion, they treat the wall as a real wall until given proper reason to disbelieve like being shoved through or maybe attacking it (though, if it feels real and they attack it, does their mind perceive their weapon bouncing off the wall? )
But spell level 1!
They touch the wall, it doesn't feel right or your hand passes through? Does it just feel wrong or does it lack any sense if feeling? If it lacks any sense of feeling does their hand just stop at the wall they have failed to disbelieve in and feel nothing but at the same time unable to force their hand through the wall? Or does their hand go through the wall?
Narratively I could see how you would not let that person willfully walk through the wall even after seeing someone else go through it, because they haven't disbelieved in the wall, so it feels like a wall.
They saw the person go through, they try, it feels solid, their brain won't let them force there way through what they perceive as a solid wall
Now, is that fair mechanically and for balance? That bit I don't know.
I personally cannot square with that, and if I was a player at table that played that way I would be pretty dissatisfied.
Like, if a character believes a wall is an illusion, they should be able to try to run through it or throw themselves through it. On the off chance that they are wrong I would come up with some appropriate amount of damage that they take. If the are right, they go through it.
Even if you don't know whether or not something is an illusion, if you believe it is based on some sort of evidence, then you should be able to attempt to go through it. And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.
Now, I don't see GMs use illusions much so it doesn't come up in way that bothers me, but yeah.
To the extent that balance is a thing, that is why I would require an extra action to be spent, to deal with the dissonance of perception and knowledge.
Narratively I could see how you would not let that person willfully walk through the wall even after seeing someone else go through it, because they haven't disbelieved in the wall, so it feels like a wall.
They saw the person go through, they try, it feels solid, their brain won't let them force there way through what they perceive as a solid wall
Now, is that fair mechanically and for balance? That bit I don't know.
I personally cannot square with that, and if I was a player at table that played that way I would be pretty dissatisfied.
Like, if a character believes a wall is an illusion, they should be able to try to run through it or throw themselves through it. On the off chance that they are wrong I would come up with some appropriate amount of damage that they take. If the are right, they go through it.
Even if you don't know whether or not something is an illusion, if you believe it is based on some sort of evidence, then you should be able to attempt to go through it. And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.
Now, I don't see GMs use illusions much so it doesn't come up in way that bothers me, but yeah.
To the extent that balance is a thing, that is why I would require an extra action to be spent, to deal with the dissonance of perception and knowledge.
Then my question (and this is more to unpack thoughts than to argue for or against)
What is the purpose of spell level 2 illusory object? It looks, sounds, smells, and feels like a wall, but because it's an illusion you walk through it anyways?
How do you walk through the feel of hard stone?
Does it feel like sand? Does it feel scratchy?
I promise you I'm not trying to come at this from bad faith or power gaming, just want to codify as much as possible with my GM to get a good working basis so nobody feels slighted.
I do think following good faith expectations. The wider the versatility the less potent it should be.
A wall of stone is real
A level 2 illusory wall of stone isn't.
Is getting an action to disbelieve it, enough? Or should the enemy just arbitrarily keep getting chances to disbelieve for no reason?
If the latter I ask again, what's the point of spell level 2? Especially the feel part
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to rectify the mental dissonance because we don't have magic to have that "innate" understanding.
I would point out that video games and other computer screen images are all illusions. We do have some experience with believing illusions to be real. Even if it is voluntarily.
Even if you don't know whether or not something is an illusion, if you believe it is based on some sort of evidence, then you should be able to attempt to go through it. And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.
It is to avoid metagaming problems. Some people have trouble separating their player knowledge that the spell is actually an illusion from their character's failure to disbelieve the illusion.
If you reach out and touch what looks and feels like a solid wall, are you actually going to run full speed into it in order to confirm your academic belief that it is an illusion in spite of what your senses are telling you?
It's hard to rectify the mental dissonance because we don't have magic to have that "innate" understanding.I would point out that video games and other computer screen images are all illusions. We do have some experience with believing illusions to be real. Even if it is voluntarily.
Even if you don't know whether or not something is an illusion, if you believe it is based on some sort of evidence, then you should be able to attempt to go through it. And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.It is to avoid metagaming problems. Some people have trouble separating their player knowledge that the spell is actually an illusion from their character's failure to disbelieve the illusion.
If you reach out and touch what looks and feels like a solid wall, are you actually going to run full speed into it in order to confirm your academic belief that it is an illusion in spite of what your senses are telling you?
If I see something go through the wall in a way that it shouldn't, and I live in a world where illusion magic is common then yes I'm going to try.
I'm not suggesting it's acceptable that a spell is cast, and without any kind of evidence at all a player character just attempt to throw themselves through the wall that appears. There is equal chance it could a "real" conjured wall or an illusion. But once there is some evidence that points toward the wall being an illusion, even if you don't succeed in saving against it you should be able go through the illusion.
It's hard to rectify the mental dissonance because we don't have magic to have that "innate" understanding.I would point out that video games and other computer screen images are all illusions. We do have some experience with believing illusions to be real. Even if it is voluntarily.
Even if you don't know whether or not something is an illusion, if you believe it is based on some sort of evidence, then you should be able to attempt to go through it. And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.It is to avoid metagaming problems. Some people have trouble separating their player knowledge that the spell is actually an illusion from their character's failure to disbelieve the illusion.
If you reach out and touch what looks and feels like a solid wall, are you actually going to run full speed into it in order to confirm your academic belief that it is an illusion in spite of what your senses are telling you?
If I see something go through the wall in a way that it shouldn't, and I live in a world where illusion magic is common then yes I'm going to try.
I'm not suggesting it's acceptable that a spell is cast, and without any kind of evidence at all a player character just attempt to throw themselves through the wall that appears. There is equal chance it could a "real" conjured wall or an illusion. But once there is some evidence that points toward the wall being an illusion, even if you don't succeed in saving against it you should be able go through the illusion.
Begs the question
What does it feel like walking through rock
Then my question (and this is more to unpack thoughts than to argue for or against)What is the purpose of spell level 2 illusory object? It looks, sounds, smells, and feels like a wall, but because it's an illusion you walk through it anyways?
How do you walk through the feel of hard stone?
Does it feel like sand? Does it feel scratchy?
Mechanically all of those questions are irrelevant. How something feels and what the perception of character is, it is an interesting question but not relevant to how we should run the spell.
I promise you I'm not trying to come at this from bad faith or power gaming, just want to codify as much as possible with my GM to get a good working basis so nobody feels slighted.
I don't think you are, but illusions are a tricky subject. And people can have very different opinions with no one specifically being wrong.
For me, being told my character can't attempt to go through an illusory wall, even if has touch sensation, is akin to mind control magic. Which illusions are not. Now, I do think a character needs reason to believe they can go through the wall, and so if the illusion was present without the character to see it come into being and had touch components they might never question it.
I do think following good faith expectations. The wider the versatility the less potent it should be.
A wall of stone is real
A level 2 illusory wall of stone isn't.
Is getting an action to disbelieve it, enough? Or should the enemy just arbitrarily keep getting chances to disbelieve for no reason?
Honestly, I would at most give like 2 saves. One as base, and another if and when they have evidence that it's an illusion (with a bonus). If they fail both they simply fail to ever disbelieve the illusion.
If the latter I ask again, what's the point of spell level 2? Especially the feel part
As I mentioned earlier, if the wall illusion is already existing (not seen cast by a character) they're much less likely to question whether it's real. The wall will seem like a wall, and upon casual inspection will feel like a wall. This is great for out of combat use.
In combat use, expect at least some enemies to question it. Especially if anything disrupts the illusion that it's a real wall by going through it.
Begs the question
What does it feel like walking through rock
As I said before, it's an interesting philosophical question but not actually important to running the game, mechanically anyways. Narratively it could be important, depending on your group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many characters first assumption that the spell that created the object is an illusion spell without having the ability to recognize the spell itself?
Just because they bandit knows about spells, doesn't have they have a good reason to first assume that the wall in question isn't real even if magically created.
A wizard enemy however I could see the recognition.
So at what point is this meta gaming?
How many characters first assumption that the spell that created the object is an illusion spell without having the ability to recognize the spell itself?
Just because they bandit knows about spells, doesn't have they have a good reason to first assume that the wall in question isn't real even if magically created.
A wizard enemy however I could see the recognition.
So at what point is this meta gaming?
I would say that at the moment a spell is cast, very few characters on the opposing side would recognize or even question whether they can go through the wall. But after that, depending on what happens the chances could rise rapidly.
Does someone else go through the wall? Does an errant ranged attack go through? Does smoke or something else? Does someone decide that this wall that completely blocks a path now needs to be destroyed and find that it's no wall at all?
As a GM I would initially run things that no character will immediately try to go through the wall unless they recognize the spell. But there are so many things that could happen that would be evidence that the wall is an illusion, and any one of them would be enough to at least get a character to attempt to go through it.
How many characters first assumption that the spell that created the object is an illusion spell without having the ability to recognize the spell itself?
Just because they bandit knows about spells, doesn't have they have a good reason to first assume that the wall in question isn't real even if magically created.
A wizard enemy however I could see the recognition.
So at what point is this meta gaming?
I would say that at the moment a spell is cast, very few characters on the opposing side would recognize or even question whether they can go through the wall. But after that, depending on what happens the chances could rise rapidly.
Does someone else go through the wall? Does an errant ranged attack go through? Does smoke or something else? Does someone decide that this wall that completely blocks a path now needs to be destroyed and find that it's no wall at all?
As a GM I would initially run things that no character will immediately try to go through the wall unless they recognize the spell. But there are so many things that could happen that would be evidence that the wall is an illusion, and any one of them would be enough to at least get a character to attempt to go through it.
These are fair points
Trust me, I don't want illusions to be useless, far from it.
But I also don't want them to be mind control.
If a character decides they're going to try to hurl themselves through something they think is an illusion, they should definitely be able to, even if they don't make the save.
Saying "well it feels like a real wall" isn't a defense against it. Real walls also feel that way, but I could still try to go through it. There simply would be consequences if it was real.
That's why as a GM I would:
1) Add an extra actin for cognitive dissonance
2) If someone tried to go through something that was real because they had come to believe it's an illusion there will be some sort of impact. Probably damage from hurling yourself with force into something real.
3) Give a guarantee that anyone who doesn't recognize a spell (action) would believe the illusion for as long as there not given evidence that it's an illusion.
I think number 3 is an important one especially
Saying "well it feels like a real wall" isn't a defense against it. Real walls also feel that way, but I could still try to go through it. There simply would be consequences if it was real.
I'm imagining a Barbarian with Bashing Charge hurling themselves through an illusory door.
Saying "well it feels like a real wall" isn't a defense against it. Real walls also feel that way, but I could still try to go through it. There simply would be consequences if it was real.I'm imagining a Barbarian with Bashing Charge hurling themselves through an illusory door.
What's neat about that, is that feat makes it clear everyone should be able to do this.
Because the advantage of Bashing Charge is that it's a 2 action activity that allows you to stride twice, and do a force open action, and gives you a +1 to do so.
Anyone else should be able to stride, force open (without the bonus), and stride again if they succeeded.
Anyone else should be able to stride, force open (without the bonus), and stride again if they succeeded.
Yeah. I would likely allow that too.
What grates on me and my sensibilities as a GM is someone who wants to say, 'oh, I know that this is an illusion spell, so I am just going to stride through the door for one action'.
Even if they do actually know in-game that the spell is an illusion spell (recognize spell, or the like), they should still have to spend an action to disbelieve - like the rule says they should.
That's exactly why I say you charge an extra action as a tax for walking through the wall due to "cognitive dissonance" between knowing it's an illusion and your perception that tells you it's real, unless they've successfully disbelieved the spell.
Speaking of what a tactile illusion feels like despite being completely intangible, I think we actually do have a point of reference for this in the modern day. The haptic feedback of even something like your phone giving that very tiny vibration to indicate you've pressed a button is giving you a sense of touching something (aside from your screen obviously) that isn't actually there. In a more applicable sense, I imagine a tangible illusion provides a soft pressure to your hand, and provides your mind with sensory details, but the moment you apply any real pressure to it, the sensation immediately gives way. If you pick up and bite into an illusory apple, you start to feel a cronch coming on but then nothing (... if you can pick up illusions?)
I would not as a GM have a creature simply assume the object was an illusion without evidence but nor would I say that creatures cannot throw themselves into a wall they belive is real but know or have been told is illusory. I think a lot of people picture "running through a wall" as a face-forward frontal approach, but I think we can agree throwing your shoulder into a wall to see if you can go through is acceptable even if your senses still insist its solid. I would say its generally still fair if it would take its own action even if you 'know' (but don't believe) the wall isn't real.
An illusion of something hot would give off enough heat that you think if you touched it you would get hurt, but when you actually touched it it would just be really warm. In this way temperature illusions are both more secure (don't want to touch test) but less (if you do you, you immediately have pretty strong evidence).
Now, if you give the illusory wall spikes... that might prevent a believing creature from attempting to run through without perhaps a will save, but of course when the spike causes no physical pain on touch it would still offer strong evidence.
Actually this brings up another point.
Saving throw.
I thought illusory object was a will save... But reading it, it's a seek action, so perception?
What illusions use will saving throws? I'm confused why I thought this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.
I feel like if I was an illusionist and I cast spells and my enemies either failed their saves or never did something to justify earning one but then bypassed my illusions anyways because they had a gut feeling about it, it would be a pretty obnoxious experience and kind of textbook bad faith play.
It's metagamey and kind of cheap, like acting to avoid AOOs without knowing a creature has one, or when you cast a charm spell and the charmed character just constantly tries to undermine the caster anyways.
First, I want to say I feel like I'm be attacked for a position I haven't taken or advocated for.
And not allowing that would be extremely grating for me.
I feel like if I was an illusionist and I cast spells and my enemies either failed their saves or never did something to justify earning one but then bypassed my illusions anyways because they had a gut feeling about it, it would be a pretty obnoxious experience and kind of textbook bad faith play.
It's metagamey and kind of cheap, like acting to avoid AOOs without knowing a creature has one, or when you cast a charm spell and the charmed character just constantly tries to undermine the caster anyways.
I have said, that:
I would say that at the moment a spell is cast, very few characters on the opposing side would recognize or even question whether they can go through the wall. But after that, depending on what happens the chances could rise rapidly.
Does someone else go through the wall? Does an errant ranged attack go through? Does smoke or something else? Does someone decide that this wall that completely blocks a path now needs to be destroyed and find that it's no wall at all?
As a GM I would initially run things that no character will immediately try to go through the wall unless they recognize the spell. But there are so many things that could happen that would be evidence that the wall is an illusion, and any one of them would be enough to at least get a character to attempt to go through it.
I haven't advocated that anyone completely ignore illusions and just walk through them.
I have advocated that when presented with some sort of evidence that something might not be real, that they can attempt to go through an illusion (say of a wall) and depending on circumstances might need to spend an extra action, but that they will be able to go through the wall regardless of successfully disbelieving an illusions.
What I said was extremely grating to me, is if you have some evidence that a thing might be an illusion you should be able to try to go through it, and if it's an illusion you should succeed.
I have suggested that anyone should be able to outright ignore an illusion without evidence.
And a smart illusion user will make their illusions in such a way that they don't reveal their nature as easily.
Cast an illusion of grease (in a bigger area than possible with the real spell) but don't make it so that it completely cuts off the enemy from you. That would give them no choice but to go through it. Cast it in a way that leaves a funnel. Characters should reasonably try to walk around the greased area. But if you cast it on top of character, it should be observable that the areas isn't slippery, not only to the character in the area but to others. At that point I would consider it acceptable for anyone to try to walk through it without caution, as they've been given evidence that it's not the real thing. Now, if you also cast an area of actual grease hidden among the illusion I might give a character walking through without care a penalty if they stumble upon the real deal.
But if you tell me that my character, who has be given reason to believe the grease isn't real can't decide to walk through the area without caution because they haven't successfully disbelieved the illusion spell we're headed to proverbial table flip territory very quickly.
I'm also reminded of a character from a published adventure, I think it might have been Zeitgeist, that had a leg eaten by a mimic. And so that character would test treasure chest and random furniture by frequently hitting it with his cane.
Similarly I can imagine a character that might have had a bad experience with illusions and might check anything that suddenly appeared before them with the idea that it might be an illusions. But if someone were to play that kind of character, I would force them to check everything that way likely wasting a lot of actions for things that would mostly turn out to be real and not illusions. And probably getting hurt several times along the way.
I'm not suggesting it's acceptable that a spell is cast, and without any kind of evidence at all a player character just attempt to throw themselves through the wall that appears. There is equal chance it could a "real" conjured wall or an illusion. But once there is some evidence that points toward the wall being an illusion, even if you don't succeed in saving against it you should be able go through the illusion.Are these two points really right though?
1) I'm not sure there is an equal chance that a surprise wall could be real or an illusion. Unless the campaign is ultra-high magic or something. When PCs run into spells, they are almost always "real". If PCs are not going around questioning fireballs, grease spells, and mud pits because they might be illusions! then I'm not sure why they would think a "feels hot to me" Wall of Fire is an illusion either.
2) My reading is that the saving throw is the character's belief (or lack of) in the illusion. There is no "I failed the save but I think it is an illusion". If they fail the save, that is the game's way of telling you that the evidence the PC has was not enough...they remain convinced the illusion is real. If they do not act as if it is real, then they are full-on metagaming.
If new evidence arises then they get another check of course, but IMO that needs to come from a legitimate action. It can't just be "I try to walk through the wall"... because nobody tries to walk through a real wall.
New evidence could be another character using Point Out or, as you mentioned in a later post, seeing smoke drift through the wall, arrows pass through the wall, etc...but not just "I try again". Doesn't make sense.
If an ally tells the PC "hey, that's an illusion", it does not mean that the PC now "knows" that the wall (or whatever) is an illusion and can go straight to suicidal tests to prove it; they still have to try to disbelieve.A: "Hey guys, wall of fire up here, feels pretty hot, let's go
...
I will give you it's not an equal chance. That was very bad phrasing on my part. I meant an individual could choose to look at something as being potentially real or illusion. But as noted in my previous post, a character that decides to test everything as illusion is going to have to actually test everything or I'm going to call it metagaming.
As to your second question/point. Yes, unequivocally yes. Yes to the point that if your answer was no and you were my GM I probably wouldn't play with you. If a creature has reason to believe something is an illusion (and just deciding it might isn't a reason) then they should be able to "test" it and try to go through.
Again if you tell me that because my character hasn't successfully disbelieved an illusions they can't try to walk through it is basically saying the illusion is actually mind control. Like I agree a character shouldn't just see a wall come into being and think "yeah, I'm gonna just walk through that". But if they see a stray arrow pass through the wall or someone else go through it, they absolutely should be able to try and go through it.
I think it's important to remember the illusions were talking about trick the senses, but they do not control the mind and they aren't "mind affecting" to use old PF1 terminology.
Illusory creature is mind control
You are convincing the enemy that it is being hurt to the point where they feel the pain and take mental damage.
That said, I could see someone testing it by trying to shove there hand through, not just running through. Though there might be rare times where that's a thing to and likely depends on the illusion
Yeah, illusory creature can actually cause damage. Though that damage is actually enough to grant the recipient a save.
Not only that but it's entirely reasonable that an enemy would try to hit the illusion, possibly getting another save if it misses (the illusion ends on a hit).
And even if told the illusory creature is an illusion, it can still deal damage unless you disbelieve it.
Illusory creature is actually really easy to run, IMO.
It's other spells that can do things like "create a wall" that are a problem. You can't climb an illusion of a wall. It doesn't block things that a wall should. And if you see something go through the wall, you should be able to question if it's real, including by trying to walk through it.
So illusory creature is mind control but not illusory object.
I do disagree if the enemy misses, it should potentially get a save. That sounds a bit bad faith to me. Unless I missed part of the rules somewhere?
I think some of this is getting lost in context.
Someone just walking through a wall because they are suspicious I don't agree with, but that's not what you were saying I think.
If someone sees someone walk through a wall, you have to weigh what that character is thinking
Wall is fake?
Dude did some hocus pocus and went through a solid object? Meld into stone kind of thing.
If they were actively chasing the enemy I could see some, but not all, trying to run through, others might be more cautious and test it first.
If there is no chase I'm less expectant depending on the enemy, that they will full sprint through, walk through carefully though sure.
Again, I'm not saying you are saying all this exactly, not trying to put words into your mouth.
But this does highlight likely a very important thing, context. By the variable nature of this spell school, both sides need to approach from a role play and good faith perspective