| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along with a lot of other topics like alignment, refocus, and name changes I would really like to see Paizo clarify the rules around ruling illusions in the remaster. I have to say that personally, I really like the way they are currently written in favor of the player. However I know there have been countless arguments on how one can interact with illusions, what it takes to disbelieve them, and what to do if someone knows its an illusion but hasnt disbelieved it. Especially in PFS.
Preferably in a way that allows spells like Illusory object to retain their strength but not in a cheap way.
From the RAW I can understand the following:
-Illusions, typically created by spells, need perception (or another check) to disbelieve them.
-A creature that interacts with an illusion in an impossible way knows its an illusion but can't ignore it until it disbelieves it.
I think a classic example is of an illusory wall or box(easily creatable using illusory object). If someone sticks their arm through an illusory wall it is obviously an illusion but if they fail their accompanying perception check then they still believe it to be real and can't ignore it.
I have seen GMs say that at this point an enemy could stride through the illusion since it knows its an illusion and others say they can't ignore it since they haven't disbelieved it.
Would love to hear the community's thoughts on possible rewording or clarification that keeps illusions powerful but also stops Illusory Object from being a pseudo 1st-2nd level wall of stone to low perception enemies.
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 (...)
I know that "it seems clear enough to me" doesn't mean much, but they gave an example of what not ignoring it means. A real door wouldn't stop you from trying to run through it, so why would an illusory one?
That said, I do feel like hashing out how illusion edge cases work with the GM before a campaign is necessary. How does Illusory Creature of a spellcaster attack? Can you move an illusory object? How does including a sense of touch work with illusions presumably not being physically present? And so on. I wouldn't mind a little more clarity on these sorts of things in general, and if people disagree about the know vs. disbelieve thing, that could probably benefit from more clarity as well.
Agreed :-), and if everything is clearer then it appeared to me then great! But the vibes I get from the changes they are trying to make are focused on reducing arguments at the table (like with alignment) and I think this would be a perfect spot to spread some love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the RAW I can understand the following:
-Illusions, typically created by spells, need perception (or another check) to disbelieve them.
-A creature that interacts with an illusion in an impossible way knows its an illusion but can't ignore it until it disbelieves it.I think a classic example is of an illusory wall or box(easily creatable using illusory object). If someone sticks their arm through an illusory wall it is obviously an illusion but if they fail their accompanying perception check then they still believe it to be real and can't ignore it.
I have seen GMs say that at this point an enemy could stride through the illusion since it knows its an illusion and others say they can't ignore it since they haven't disbelieved it.Would love to hear the community's thoughts on possible rewording or clarification that keeps illusions powerful but also stops Illusory Object from being a pseudo 1st-2nd level wall of stone to low perception enemies.
I'm not sure it is totally clear but this is how i understand the RAW.
If you have no reason to suspect an illusion you must treat it as real - so you would not normally attempt to crash through an illusionary wall. Almost anything else is metagaming and should be banned by the GM. But circumstances will arise where you might reasonably want a perception check.
However if you have some reason like you have been told by the caster, or the wall just appeared in front of you. Then you have reason to doubt the wall and you should be making checks. If you succeed then you should be able to go through and see through the illusion, else no because you choose to stop.
If you have seen the wall penetrated by a missile or another creature, then you have a reason to believe the wall is fake or fragile (even though you can't tell ie you failed your save) so attempting to move through it is fair enough. But as a GM I would always insist on a check for each creature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we need more rules for illusions.
Instead, players and GMs should be encouraged to collaborate. Illusions are a lot of fun when the whole table can play along, but miserable when there's antagonism between player and GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are also miserable when the players can see what is happening and are powerless against them because no one at the table can roll above low single digits.
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 (...)I know that "it seems clear enough to me" doesn't mean much, but they gave an example of what not ignoring it means. A real door wouldn't stop you from trying to run through it, so why would an illusory one? ...
'cause you believe it will...
The power of suggestion is mighty strong.
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 (...)I know that "it seems clear enough to me" doesn't mean much, but they gave an example of what not ignoring it means. A real door wouldn't stop you from trying to run through it, so why would an illusory one? ...'cause you believe it will...
The power of suggestion is mighty strong.
As opposed to the power of Suggestion, which was nerfed into the ground.
From the RAW I can understand the following:
-Illusions, typically created by spells, need perception (or another check) to disbelieve them.
-A creature that interacts with an illusion in an impossible way knows its an illusion but can't ignore it until it disbelieves it.I think a classic example is of an illusory wall or box(easily creatable using illusory object). If someone sticks their arm through an illusory wall it is obviously an illusion but if they fail their accompanying perception check then they still believe it to be real and can't ignore it.
I have seen GMs say that at this point an enemy could stride through the illusion since it knows its an illusion and others say they can't ignore it since they haven't disbelieved it.Would love to hear the community's thoughts on possible rewording or clarification that keeps illusions powerful but also stops Illusory Object from being a pseudo 1st-2nd level wall of stone to low perception enemies.
I'm not sure it is totally clear but this is how i understand the RAW.
If you have no reason to suspect an illusion you must treat it as real - so you would not normally attempt to crash through an illusionary wall. Almost anything else is metagaming and should be banned by the GM. But circumstances will arise where you might reasonably want a perception check.
However if you have some reason like you have been told by the caster, or the wall just appeared in front of you. Then you have reason to doubt the wall and you should be making checks. If you succeed then you should be able to go through and see through the illusion, else no because you choose to stop.
If you have seen the wall penetrated by a missile or another creature, then you have a reason to believe the wall is fake or fragile (even though you can't tell ie you failed your save) so attempting to move through it is fair enough. But as a GM I would always insist on a check for each creature.
This is pretty much what I do. If a character has reason to believe the wall is fake, I'll let them attempt to move straight through without spending an extra action to Seek. But I require them to make a will save to overcome what their senses are telling them. If they succeed, they can move through the object and I give them a Perception check to disbelieve.
I've written about this before, but ultimately IMO if a character has reason to believe something is an illusion that can try to walk through it. I think the last time I ruminated on this I suggested possibly requiring an extra action to deal with your mind suggesting/knowing it's fake and your senses telling you otherwise. But an illusion, even disbelieved, shouldn't stop you from trying to walk through it.And attempting to do so should grant you a save.
But it is important to realize that an illusion of a wall that was in place before you arrived will likely arouse no reason for someone to suspect it's an illusion, and thus they wont have a chance to save against the illusion.
My personal approach would be "consequences if you're wrong". Want to try walking through a wall because you think it's an illusion? Sure, but if it's not, you don't get to use the rest of the movement for something else; you ran into a wall. The stakes could even be upped to prone for a more fair "save an action, but risk losing one".
That's definitely well outside of official rules, though, and it doesn't address actual metagaming.
My personal approach would be "consequences if you're wrong". Want to try walking through a wall because you think it's an illusion? Sure, but if it's not, you don't get to use the rest of the movement for something else; you ran into a wall. The stakes could even be upped to prone for a more fair "save an action, but risk losing one".
That's definitely well outside of official rules, though, and it doesn't address actual metagaming.
My problem with this approach is you don't actually risk losing an action, because without this ruling you'd wind up needing to spend a Seek action examining this illusion. You're always safer just trying to walk through it. Which is why I like to tie the attempt to a successful will save.
My personal approach would be "consequences if you're wrong". Want to try walking through a wall because you think it's an illusion? Sure, but if it's not, you don't get to use the rest of the movement for something else; you ran into a wall. The stakes could even be upped to prone for a more fair "save an action, but risk losing one".
That's definitely well outside of official rules, though, and it doesn't address actual metagaming.
That's why I just prefer to say it's costs an extra action due to the cognitive dissonance, but if you're wrong you could still turn and go a different direction and it's not particularly unfair (in my opinion).
Like if someone was blind and unaware of the illusion (and the actual wall it was superimposed on) then they would presumably be walking (carefully) and then feel the wall and turn to go a different way.
Now if you can see you shouldn't be prevented from doing something similar, but you also have the disadvantage of the illusion there that you for some reason believe to be fake and don't realize there is an actual wall behind it. So the cognitive dissonance to me is best handled by an extra action cost.
If someone where to run (not carefully, like charging) at something they thought was an illusion but was real (or had something real behind) then they would take some sort of penalty and probably land prone. Something like that.
Reflect on how complicated this discussion has gotten by considering all the variables. Now try to write rules encapsulating all that...and more.
Perhaps Paizo should add advice about how to adjudicate illusions, but darn if they (and the fantasy contexts in which they'd be used) ain't too versatile for rigorous rules.
Reflect on how complicated this discussion has gotten by considering all the variables. Now try to write rules encapsulating all that...and more.
Perhaps Paizo should add advice about how to adjudicate illusions, but darn if they (and the fantasy contexts in which they'd be used) ain't too versatile for rigorous rules.
I actually LIKED the 1e / 3.5 illusion subschools and rules a lot (and played several fun illusionists over the years including rules-strict environments like PFS). I thought those subschool rules added depth and flavor; they also assisted GMs in making better more balanced rulings.
I also strongly believe a few constraints can lead us to more narratively appropriate, creative, and interesting solutions.
I am pretty sure I am in the vast minority on actually enjoying those old rules, however.