Hello
I come from PF1 environment and would like to try my hand playing a sort of illusionist in PF2.
I'm reading the various illusion spells and their relation to actions and they are a bit confusing as to what they can do - specifically the illusory object. I'd like to hear if GMs agree with my perspective on things.
It says it can create illusory visual image of a stationary object and gives waterfall as an example but what counts as an object?
Normally I'd rule that object is not an effect or a composite. For example a building or a maze is a composite of individual objects where as something like a simple bridge, a sword or even a brazier is not if we follow the rules of natural language. We don't think sword as as a separate hilt and blade objects but we can easily point out individual objects like a door or a window that is part of a building.
This means you could create a door, a cage, or even a simple bridge but not a shed, a maze, or a drawbridge. I wouldn't even allow you to create a wall but you could certainly create a stone slab to block a doorway.
Now the waterfall example confuses me as I wouldn't normally allow creation of a waterfall. It's not an object like for example a fountain. It's part of a scene similar to how a cavern wall or a crystal cluster is and imo it should be something that requires illusory scene. For me an object is something you could pick up and move around even theoretically but I don't see how you could pick and move a waterfall without destroying it. A fountain, a well or a bird bath yes, but a waterfall no... but based on the description I assume this is wrong interpretation?
Effects are not objects but can be part of an object within a reason
You couldn't create an orb of light, a fog cloud or an area of darkness because they are not objects but you could create a flaming brazier, a cage around someone or a fountain with bubbling water. That being said illusion only creates illusion and not actual effect so a lit brazier would not illuminate a room. It wouldn't even show up in a room without sufficient ambient light for that reason.
Dousing yourself in illusory fountain would not extinguish any flames because while it might (heightened 2nd level) feel and sound like water, it wouldn't actually make you or your clothes wet or even quench your thirst.
I would also rule that a two-way mirror doesn't work for this reason. A normal mirror with ability to reflect a scene are still within reason since it's part of what makes the mirror appear real. Not extra functionality.
I assume this is pretty much the correct interpreration cause otherwise it would be something more in line with a creation spell.
Illusory objects fool senses but have no physical presence
Illusory object creates something perceivable within limits of your senses even if you disbelief them. You can't perceive any more than your senses normally allow but they can fool senses only if you could perceive them in the first place (i.e. a person who can't see visual illusion because they are in a dark room is immune to visual illusion because they can't see it - even if it's illusion of a flaming brazier cause it doesn't actually shed light to illuminate the room).
Disbelieving the illusion doesn't make it go away
Now here it gets a bit confusing because this wasn't said anywhere in the spell or illusion descriptions (that I found), but seems to be something people have consensus on. Basically the summary of all of it is that if you can perceive the illusion, you can disbelieve it, but that merely tells you it's not real. It doesn't make it disappear because it's actual false sensory input and not a phantasm in your mind.
This apparently means that a door still obscures your vision but doesn't block your movement through it, a disease ridden rotting corpse still smells rotting but wouldn't make you nauseated, and you still feel the pricks and pain from a thorny rose or from falling on an illusory spike but not take any damage. None of that would have happened in the first place anyway because illusory objects don't have physical presence.
I get that some of this functions as a limitation because while your enemies can't know how many people are behind the illusory door, neither can you. The best you can do is lob fireball through and hope it hits someone. I also get it works as a deterrent so people don't try stupid stuff such as running face first to a door or across a slab of spikes covering a corridor. I mean even if they disbelief all that, the pain is still there.
My problem is that I feel there should be some effect from perceiving the effect even if it's illusory. If you force yourself through an illusory door and still feel the impact, shouldn't that at least make you clumsy or stupefied 1 or something for a turn?
Who disbeliefs and what and why?
Here it gets more confusing because "Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion".
Does this mean that under all conditions illusory objects are disbelieved personally? Including the caster and his allies? I'd assume the caster automatically disbelieves but I didn't find anything concerning that.
Also there seems to be a strong indication you have to disbelief before you can act. Why would you need to disbelieve existence of an illusory door if... say... a barbarian decided to bash down a door without investigating it first. It's perfectly reasonable action when facing a door so where does the disbelieving come in?
She would merely charge and pass through it without apparently affecting the door in any way. I mean the door could not stop the charge since it has no physical presence. It merely feels solid. It's not actually solid.
Wouldn't any normal person in that case just think "gee, there's something odd going with that door/wall" and since the illusory objects don't block sound or anything else, couldn't the the barbarian just shout "What the hell happened, I just went through!?" and everyone else goes "oh, so it wasn't a teleport trap or barbarian getting disintegrated by touching the door, guess I can walk through!"
I'd more or less judge at that point that everyone disbelieves or at least can act whichever way they want such as try to run through the door, BUT if they do, they would be stupefied or something along those lines because disbelieving doesn't actually remove the sensation (as mentioned above).
Otherwise forcing creatures (and players) to spend multiple actions to discern the true nature before they can act sounds (to me) way too powerful. I could see myself destroying entire encounters and overshadowing others with a few convenient illusions. In my head illusions are more to sow confusion and act as deterrent rather than something that actually eats up actions from entire groups of eniemies.
I mean why pick for example slow when you have a first level spell that can do the same? At the same time I don't feel it would be fair or fun if the GM just said "oh they know it's an illusion and just ignore it".
TL;DR; How do GMs deal with illusions and disbelief?
I agree Illusory Object and some other illusion spells need more clarification. Due this I have my own house rules to this:
This is how I currently rule the Illusory Object.
All other creatures not, including allies, minions and eidolons yet I allow the caster to use Aid as free-action (those who receive yet have to use it's own reaction) to allow them to use as circumstance bonus in disbelieve checks and without need to touch the "object" if the caster talks to his/her allies that this is an illusion.
I was also thinking that maybe point out action from anyone who has disbelieved the illusion could give others free action to disbelief the illusion.
This would mean that only the one who interacts and successfully disbeliefs the illusion would lose action (if they inform allies). I feel this is more in line of the intention of the spell as it's still not a guaranteed success.
If no one has yet disbelieved or used the point out action, then anyone who interacts with the illusion would still need to use an action to disbelief it.
However I'm still not entirely sure what exactly is the disadvantage for *not* disbelieving the illusion. You can still reasonably ignore its effects by virtue of just interacting with it - assuming you have reason to interact with it in the first place.
The effect is not a mind-affecting phantasm so a character would not make excuses as to why the brazier they just lit doesn't actually shed light or why their hammer just went through the wall that they tried to bash down. Of course they are wasting an action here so the end result is pretty much the same, so in my opinion the result should be automatic disbelief in which case they could use the "point out" action to help others disbelief it.
If you are not even aware of anything being out of place, I'm hard pressed to believe you would interact with the object in the first place. Case in point creating a false wall just ahead of the real thing and hiding behind it. Why would anyone suddenly believe there's anything special about the wall. I mean do people regularly go around their place tapping walls to see if they are illusions?
This is incidentally why I'm also against allowing wall creation (even if it makes my life easier and GM's more difficult). It's just easy way to bypass any chase encounters as you just create a wall and hide behind it. At least with a suddenly appearing door or a stone slab that was not there before, critters have reason to expect foul and investigate it.
You can create anything that you want inside the 20-foot burst area with any movement you want that's the duration is no more than around 6s (1 round time) in order to prevent it to override Illusory Scene spell.
Hrm so no definition as what counts as an object? One round is still a lot so you could create the sample waterfall, a door that opens and closes, a pool of molten rock spouting a looping lava geysir, fill the area with fog cloud, create a maze of mirrors etc etc... so many opportunities here.
I also allow characters to use Seek action without touch (up to a 10-foot square adjacent to you) if they want (usually giving some circumstance penalty due the distance, illumination and lack of some special senses) to disbelieve from distance in order to prevent traps triggers being hidden by the illusion noticing inconstancies between the illusion and the environment.
Another interesting point. I was actually considering a "troll build" sorcerer with Djinni bloodline. Illusory object and Glyph of Warding seemed like a fun combo for this specific reason. You could hide the glyph and the spell with an illusion.
Anyhow. Thanks for letting me know how you run it. I'm hoping others chime in to give me a better idea if this is the way how most do it... cause I can see a lot of fun ways to mess with encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The waterfall example is terrible and I hope it's revised out in Core. A question I ask myself for illusions is "does this illusion replicate the effects of a more powerful spell"? For example Hallucinatory Terrain (level 4) can create a scene, puting someone in an illusory cage replicates Hologram Cage (level 5), a maze trapping someone like the level 8 maze spell, etc.
So in my opinion you don't get to do stuff like that with a level 1 spell.
I personally dislike Illusory Object due to its lack of description. The area is enormous, the word object is not defined (and a waterfall is definitely not an object to me) neither the actual effect(s). Very liberal reading of it turns it into an AoE control spell. And unfortunately, due to the lack of details in the spell description, it's impossible to dismiss this reading.
Luckily, my players have always used it when an illusion was required and not as a control spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally dislike Illusory Object due to its lack of description. The area is enormous, the word object is not defined (and a waterfall is definitely not an object to me) neither the actual effect(s). Very liberal reading of it turns it into an AoE control spell. And unfortunately, due to the lack of details in the spell description, it's impossible to dismiss this reading.
Luckily, my players have always used it when an illusion was required and not as a control spell.
What is an illusion in combat if not a control spell?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've long felt that illusion magic in general to be FAR too vague and lacking serious guardrails or consistency in PF2.
Hopefully that gets tightened up rather than further loosened by way of "ask your GM haha" guidance in the revamp/remaster/not-a-new-edition-edition.
I've long felt that illusion magic in general to be FAR too vague and lacking serious guardrails or consistency in PF2.
Hopefully that gets tightened up rather than further loosened by way of "ask your GM haha" guidance in the revamp/remaster/not-a-new-edition-edition.
Yes Illusions need to be split into:
a) sensory effectsb) mental effects
c) quasi real effects (shadow stuff)
Only when you do that can you hope to come up with any sort of logical consistancy.
What is an illusion in combat if not a control spell?
Well, first of all, you don't have to use Illusory Object during combat, it has a lot of other uses. And you can still use it during combat as an illusion and not a control spell: Raising an illusory fire because you know the enemy is phobic, showing big cracks on the dam suggesting that it will break in a matter of seconds and flood the area, etc... All the illusion-based uses of illusory object are working fine in combat.
When the most important effect of Illusory Object is the disbelieve rule I feel that the spell is no more used for its intended use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is an illusion in combat if not a control spell?Well, first of all, you don't have to use Illusory Object during combat, it has a lot of other uses. And you can still use it during combat as an illusion and not a control spell: Raising an illusory fire because you know the enemy is phobic, showing big cracks on the dam suggesting that it will break in a matter of seconds and flood the area, etc... All the illusion-based uses of illusory object are working fine in combat.
When the most important effect of Illusory Object is the disbelieve rule I feel that the spell is no more used for its intended use.
But both of the examples you named were ways to manipulate the enemy's actions. Make them scared to cross the fire to teach you, or try to make them flee. They are attempting to control the battlefield much like a wall spell or Command would. I can see the argument that Illusory Objects breaks the balance compared to other spells like this, but illusions seem very intentionally tailored to control effects.
So what happens when the wizard casts an illusion of a wall of stone next to himself ? He'll have to disbelieve it, but since it's next to him he can (and some GM will give him a bonus to this, or as I saw in this thread even allow him to disbelieve freely). And now what ? Untargetable for anyone except a monster who spends his turn going next to the wall of stone (one action wasted) and disbelieving it (another action wasted) ? And ranged monsters are SoL ?
So what happens when the wizard casts an illusion of a wall of stone next to himself ? He'll have to disbelieve it, but since it's next to him he can (and some GM will give him a bonus to this, or as I saw in this thread even allow him to disbelieve freely). And now what ? Untargetable for anyone except a monster who spends his turn going next to the wall of stone (one action wasted) and disbelieving it (another action wasted) ? And ranged monsters are SoL ?
The wizard would still need to spend actions to disbelieve, or at least interact with it in some way. TBH I see no rule support for treating it as a free action just because an ally points it out or whatever. The rules in fact lay out that you can know something is an illusion but not see through it.
That aside, if the wizard hides behind their wall, they suffer several downsides.
1. They likely spent minimum three actions on this, potentially more if they failed their first disbelieve check.
2. Even if they disbelieve it, they will likely treat it as concealment and therefore 20% mischance for their targeting.
3. If they go on to shoot lightning bolts or rays of frost through the wall, enemies may reasonably realize it is an illusion even without a disbelieve check. My own solution in scenarios like this (or having an ally inform you they created an illusion) is you can try to ignore the illusion and move through it, but you need a will save to overcome what your senses are telling you to run headfirst into a brick wall. On a success you can move through without spending further actions.
4. If the wizard is fighting with allies, said allies will just get targeted instead. If the wizard is fighting solo, then their enemies will just move up and get past the wall eventually.
Illusory Object is one of the best spells in the game as written IMO, and is able to simulate a bunch of other spells at very low level. But it requires you to be clever to do so, thinking through both tactics and psychology, and it usually only works well against big dumb solo bosses. It also loses effectiveness if you try using it more than once against the same enemy. There are a few spells it invalidates, like Illusory Prison, but I'd argue those are mostly just bad spells.
But both of the examples you named were ways to manipulate the enemy's actions. Make them scared to cross the fire to teach you, or try to make them flee. They are attempting to control the battlefield much like a wall spell or Command would. I can see the argument that Illusory Objects breaks the balance compared to other spells like this, but illusions seem very intentionally tailored to control effects.
We can play on labels, but that's not important. I make a distinction between an illusion which is supposed to interact with the scene and events to create an effect and a cookie cutter illusion that only cares about the disbelieving rules.
Roughly, if illusions where automatically disbelieved on strange interactions without any action cost, the first type of illusions would stay the same while the second type would disappear. I prefer Illusory Object to be limited to the first type.
The remastery is going to be changing more than the names of spells, and while no one can one “illusory object” as a phrase. The exact mechanics being exactly the same through decades of games could lead to devs wanting to do something to make illusions work more uniquely to the fantasy magic of Golarion. I would love for sensory perception to be more clearly stated in the remastery and for illusion spells to be more explicit in how they interact with primary and secondary senses.
Ventriloquism has long been my favorite low level illusion spell because it has a duration for letting you make auditory illusions, but I would not be offended if illusions got boxed up by what you can do by lank of spell and number of senses you can effect.
First thanks for replies everyone! Seems this is something that probably needs to be discussed extensively with a GM before the game starts.
My concern is that the GM might have entirely different idea about what the spell can or can't do - and those things might pop up only when the spell is first used.
It's even worse if we both agree on rules and I figure out some trick which basically allows us to bypass all encounters, forcing the GM to change the rules mid game. Either that or the GM makes the critters act in a way that breaks the suspension of disbelief - and makes my character unfun to play in the progress.
i.e. if I end up using the wall trick every encounter that probably wouldn't be fun for anyone involved, but at the same time it's a stretch for enemies to suddenly start checking for walls if they have absolutely no reason to believe the party is hiding behind one.
Combine this with some way to create distraction at a range or a silence spell to block any sounds from your party, and you are basically guaranteed to be able to safely skip a lot of encounters.
3. If they go on to shoot lightning bolts or rays of frost through the wall, enemies may reasonably realize it is an illusion even without a disbelieve check. My own solution in scenarios like this (or having an ally inform you they created an illusion) is you can try to ignore the illusion and move through it, but you need a will save to overcome what your senses are telling you to run headfirst into a brick wall. On a success you can move through without spending further actions.
This seems like a reasonable solution until you realize there are various things you can do to bypass it which are even reasonable because it doesn't have physical presence.
You could attempt to blast the illusory wall into pieces in which case the spell or the bomb would just go through and hit things behind it. You could charge and smash the wall with a hammer in an attempt to break it and you would just charge through.
The other (more iffier imo) explanation is that for all intents and purposes the wall actually exists until you disbelief it. Nothing originating from a person that believes in the wall can pass through it, no fireballs, no lightning bolts, not even the hammer used to smash the wall. Not even if they see allies who successfully do those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. If they go on to shoot lightning bolts or rays of frost through the wall, enemies may reasonably realize it is an illusion even without a disbelieve check. My own solution in scenarios like this (or having an ally inform you they created an illusion) is you can try to ignore the illusion and move through it, but you need a will save to overcome what your senses are telling you to run headfirst into a brick wall. On a success you can move through without spending further actions.This seems like a reasonable solution until you realize there are various things you can do to bypass it which are even reasonable because it doesn't have physical presence.
You could attempt to blast the illusory wall into pieces in which case the spell or the bomb would just go through and hit things behind it. You could charge and smash the wall with a hammer in an attempt to break it and you would just charge...
I'm failing to see the problem with any of those solutions. If you shoot blind through the wall, you likely have at best a 50% miss chance for anything targeted (because people on the other side would at least be hidden). If you try to smash the wall with a hammer, you're at minimum wasting an action Striking it, probably get MAP, and definitely get a chance to disbelieve. If you try to blow it up with a fireball, you're going to likely hit the caster hiding behind it and the spell didn't really help.
It seems to me that those are great illustrations of the pros and cons of illusions. They are quite good if you can predict how your enemy will respond to them, but a miscalculation can make them a waste of a turn. Where as by comparison a proper wall spell has better odds of meaningfully slowing down your opposition but requires a higher level spell slot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for balance purposes compare it to other area spells who's primary purpose is to cost the enemy actions and/or inflict concealment or inflict concealment/blindness
This one is easy: They are much higher level. AoE/multi target debuffs without Incapacitation tag are level 5+ spells. So for balance purposes, one should severely limit Illusory Object, which is the whole issue of the spell.
My concern is that the GM might have entirely different idea about what the spell can or can't do - and those things might pop up only when the spell is first used.
This is why Paizo should look at it as a priority.
One of the big benefits of PF2 is that there are clear rules for things. Illusions are better defined in PF2 than every before, but it is still not good yet.
This is a problem that can be solved. Please Paizo don't just park it in the leaky GM's choice bucket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am a low level NPC and I see someone create a wall out of thin air, I will first check if it's real. If so, I will get the hell out of Dodge.
Far above my paygrade.
Another point that is rarely addressed is: "How does it look like when you cast Wall of Stone? And Illusory Object?".
Spellcasting is obvious and recognizable (that's why you can recognize the spell from casting). I expect very different reactions from the enemy between two very different spellcasting:"The building shakes as a wall of stone emerges from the ground."
"A wall of stone materializes in front of you with a ringing noise."
I a world full of magic, illusions are definitely something people know about and recognize. If they see someone going through a wall, they'll clearly deduce that the wall is imaginary. And in case of weird spellcasting, they may definitely conclude they are just facing an illusion and as such ignore it without even taking care of disbelieving it.
If I am a low level NPC and I see someone create a wall out of thin air, I will first check if it's real. If so, I will get the hell out of Dodge.
Far above my paygrade.
Another point that is rarely addressed is: "How does it look like when you cast Wall of Stone? And Illusory Object?".
Spellcasting is obvious and recognizable (that's why you can recognize the spell from casting). I expect very different reactions from the enemy between two very different spellcasting:
"The building shakes as a wall of stone emerges from the ground."
"A wall of stone materializes in front of you with a ringing noise."I a world full of magic, illusions are definitely something people know about and recognize. If they see someone going through a wall, they'll clearly deduce that the wall is imaginary. And in case of weird spellcasting, they may definitely conclude they are just facing an illusion and as such ignore it without even taking care of disbelieving it.
Eh. I wouldn't just assume people are familiar with how illusions work, not without at least rolling a Recall Knowledge check for them. Someone trained in arcana would likely know you need much more powerful magic to generate an actual object than an illusion of one. But most creatures and PCs aren't trained in that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. I wouldn't just assume people are familiar with how illusions work, not without at least rolling a Recall Knowledge check for them. Someone trained in arcana would likely know you need much more powerful magic to generate an actual object than an illusion of one. But most creatures and PCs aren't trained in that.
My mother knows how to defeat a phishing attempt despite being clueless about how it works exactly. She just doesn't click the hyperlink.
I expect people in Golarion to have very similar basic knowledge of magic. Magic is everywhere, the average people on Golarion sees a spell being cast at least on a weekly basis, if not a daily one. And illusions and charms are the most obvious schools to scam people, so everyone should know basic stuff about them. Like to always wait a day before making an important decision (prevents most enchantments). Or just licking anything that sounds weirdly inappropriate (goes through most illusions).
I don't know why a lot of people insist on Golarion inhabitants being absolutely clueless about magic despite living in a world where magic exists. That's basic curiosity to know how it looks like. If it was an actual world, I'm pretty sure everyone would know how to recognize Suggestion considering how it can be used to abuse absolutely anyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much of this conversation demonstrates why illusions work best when the GM & player have a collaborative approach.
|
|
Eh. I wouldn't just assume people are familiar with how illusions work, not without at least rolling a Recall Knowledge check for them. Someone trained in arcana would likely know you need much more powerful magic to generate an actual object than an illusion of one. But most creatures and PCs aren't trained in that.My mother knows how to defeat a phishing attempt despite being clueless about how it works exactly. She just doesn't click the hyperlink.
I expect people in Golarion to have very similar basic knowledge of magic. Magic is everywhere, the average people on Golarion sees a spell being cast at least on a weekly basis, if not a daily one. And illusions and charms are the most obvious schools to scam people, so everyone should know basic stuff about them. Like to always wait a day before making an important decision (prevents most enchantments). Or just licking anything that sounds weirdly inappropriate (goes through most illusions).
I don't know why a lot of people insist on Golarion inhabitants being absolutely clueless about magic despite living in a world where magic exists. That's basic curiosity to know how it looks like. If it was an actual world, I'm pretty sure everyone would know how to recognize Suggestion considering how it can be used to abuse absolutely anyone.
Also anyone can do Recall Knowledge untrained.
I fully agree that knowing that Illusion magic is a thing that is easily accessible seems pretty obvious in a world full of actual magic and casters. It is pretty much required even just for survival.
Knowing that powerful casters can create walls of fire and of stone is pretty easy too : it is the stuff of campfire tales and legends people talk about in homes and taverns alike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the question is how widespread is magic. The experience of someone in downtown Absalom is different from someone in rural Molthune. And of course why you’d be disbelieving. What’s to not disbelieve about an instant palisade or sandbag wall appearing between a wizard and archer duo and the enemy?