I'm the GM, a question came up on how Illusory Creature would function from my player. As we spoke a few edge cases came to mind. As I try to anticipate any curve balls my players throw. With how loosey-goosey this spell is, it doesn't help.
Could it do Administer First Aid? If so, what would its skill bonus be?
Could it do the demoralize action? If so, what would it’s skill bonus be?
Would it react to gravity or water (would it look wet?) For example, it's standing on a wooden platform 5 feet up from water. The wooden platform goes out. Would it fall into the water? If it did fall would it look wet in the water or bone dry but merely in the water?
My knee jerk reaction?
Firstly, with administer First aid, I would say no. Even though it states “It generates the appropriate sounds, smells, and feels believable to the touch.” It specified “The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world.” To me that means they are unable to do other physical actions like administer aid, shove, trip, aid and anything else physical. Yet it can still strike.
Could it Demoralize? I would say yes given, it's not a physical action. And given, “The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.” However, I’m uncertain what the skill bonus (use the casters skill bonus or no bonus) would be or if the DC should be adjusted. Using a Bear as an example. While the casters voice is modified, it is still them demoralizing (Roaring) like a bear. I dunno I was thinking of applying a -2 circumstance penalty to the check. On the grounds of “Ok I'm a human and I gotta make my illusory creature that looks like a bear roar like one.”
As for gravity and or appearing wet? I could go either way. However, if they aren't affected by gravity and don't appear wet in water. I'd grant the enemies at the very least a free check to try and disbelieve it. Or even automatically succeed, “Hey that platform went out and that wolf is just standing there in the air…that's not real.”
Happy to hear your thoughts. With how open ended this spell is…confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First aid: No, for the reasons you listed.
Demoralize: I'd allow it, though my own GM does not. That said, if you allow you should probably use the default Demoralize rules, including the linguistics penalty.
Gravity: pretty much up to the player, I'd say, as the illusion can have whatever make believe powers or properties they want.
Water: you could make the illusion look wet but it would be a conscious effort by the caster, and it wouldn't make a splash, which might cause the creature to make a Seek or Recall Knowledge action, or even give a free disbelieve check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if a player wanted to use their Illusory Creature to demoralize I'd make them roll their own bonus but give a circumstance bonus to it for summoning something scary.
Administering aid is very clear, yeah.
Demoralize- easiest way to handle it is allowing the caster to deliver a demoralize through the illusion, with appropriate modifiers to the circumstance. If the caster as Intimidating Glare, I'd consider that the knowledge and experience necessary for the creature to be able to spend its directed actions on a non-verbal intimidation. I'd still use the caster's modifier for it, though.
As far as gravity stuff is concerned, note that the spell only gives saves on touch, seek, or incongruous damage. That means it should almost never do anything that would give an enemy a free check or automatic success- at least as long as the caster doesn't want to make obvious flaws intentionally, and so long as only the creature needs to change to look convincing.
I think it's helpful to keep in mind for flavor purposes that a similar level Illusory Object spell lasts for an entire hour (if not being permanent) with appropriate stationary animation, vs. requiring constant attention in the form of an action every round. Yeah, the illusion should be able to react appropriately- it has the constant and dedicated attention of the caster.
IMO
...
The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.
...
As GM you need to take an special care with illusions because PF2 is pretty lenient with them. Depending of how the caster changes an illusion it can become pretty OP and you may want to limit it a bit. Due illusion are player's fiat you need to use your GM's fiat in order to balance them if they are exploiting it too much.
How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?
That's a GM call, but "situations where the caster doesn't think the illusory creature should fall or get wet, but it actually should" should be rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO
As GM you need to take an special care with illusions because PF2 is pretty lenient with them. Depending of how the caster changes an illusion it can become pretty OP and you may want to limit it a bit. Due illusion are player's fiat you need to use your GM's fiat in order to balance them if they are exploiting it too much.
I can assure you I am. When I make a ruling, I understand the pc’s and npc’s must adhere to it. For my players when I make a ruling I like to give an explanation as to why, so they see my thought process. And well, trying to cover the ‘blind spots’ for this spell. My notes are getting pretty long.
Which, I get it. It’s an illusion, not a minion. Illusions are pretty open ended. While I do want them to use it. I wouldn’t want it to be abused: “Say can I make an invisible illusory creature to attack enemies? That way they get the benefits of being invisible.”
That’s a hard “no” for me. Not that my players are that big of min/maxers. But hey if it was allowed I'd understand why they'd spam that.
Not that I’m going to change anything now. I will die on a hill that Illusory Creature should at least have the uncommon trait. Just because of how open ended and ripe for abuse.
As for the gravity?
The gravity I am leaving it to my players to decide, as that I have no strong feelings for. Once it’s decided I will enforce it consistently.
As for appearing wet? Some evidence can be found in Illusory Object. ”The object appears to animate naturally, but it doesn't make sounds or generate smells. For example, water would appear to pour down an illusory waterfall, but it would be silent.”
Keeping in mind for the rules with Illusions.
“If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would prove it's 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. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed.”
Added together, if an Illusory Creature was in water. The water would react around it appropriately. Bobbing up and down, ripples and small waves. However, if an enemy came close by. They would be liable to notice: No feeling or hearing any waves hitting the illusion. Which wouldn’t be enough to disbelieve it. But enough for them to try and figure out what it is, aka seek to disbelieve.
How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?
If not effected by water/enviroment. I would picture something like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.
This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”
Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.
This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”
Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”
It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.
This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”
Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”
Exactly. I'd say the same for Intimidation (et al).
Essentially it has +0, meaning it might work at the lowest levels, but not so much later. Of course an illusory creature might be scary enough on its own if the it suits the narrative.
It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.
Per the rules,“You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.”
To me, this implies when making skill checks with the illusory creature. To use the bonus of the given skill on the casters sheet.
As an example, if they wanted their Illusory Creature to shove a target. I'd have the caster make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude DC. Not use their spell attack roll.
That way Telekinetic Maneuver retains its purpose. Is it no better than if the Caster went up to the target and tried to shove the target their self? Correct.
At the end of the day, this isn't a minion. I wouldn't want this to encroach on spells, classes and abilities that grant minions or companions (Eidolons). Nor would I want it to reduce the effectiveness of other spells, like Telekinetic Maneuver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.Per the rules,“You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.”
To me, this implies when making skill checks with the illusory creature. To use the bonus of the given skill on the casters sheet.
As an example, if they wanted their Illusory Creature to shove a target. I'd have the caster make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude DC. Not use their spell attack roll.
That way Telekinetic Maneuver retains its purpose. Is it no better than if the Caster went up to the target and tried to shove the target their self? Correct.
At the end of the day, this isn't a minion. I wouldn't want this to encroach on spells, classes and abilities that grant minions or companions (Eidolons). Nor would I want it to reduce the effectiveness of other spells, like Telekinetic Maneuver.
See, that doesn't follow at all for me. Your skill at lying or acting obviously helps you make your illusion lie or act- because you direct it and speak through it. Your quoted text comes right after "The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate."
The caster being more athletic doesn't translate to the illusion being able to convince somebody that they should be tripped.
Exactly. I'd say the same for Intimidation (et al).
Essentially it has +0, meaning it might work at the lowest levels, but not so much later. Of course an illusory creature might be scary enough on its own if the it suits the narrative.
Since you can spend your actions to speak through the creature, taking the demoralize action (auditory) and delivering it through the creature should be fine. It just wouldn't be one of the illusion's two actions per turn; it'd have to be one of yours.
I really don't see how this could be read as if illusions were allowed to do Athletics skill checks. Damage is a game term. It's not any 'effect', it's damage. Results of athletics maneuvers aren't damage in general. So no, no Athletics for illusions. (Yes, there's also this small issue of not having relevant statistics).
Verbal skill checks and feats I'd allow considering it explicitly allows project and imitate voice and that you have basically full control over it and its appearance. Then it's obviously caster's skills in work like Intimidation. Don't know about modifiers though, they could vary. Ah, yes, and it's your normal actions with normal costs.
You are miss quoting me.
This is because per the rules for the spells state..”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)
Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata. “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”
If it wasn’t for the FAQ, then I would have agreed with you.
See, that doesn't follow at all for me. Your skill at lying or acting obviously helps you make your illusion lie or act- because you direct it and speak through it. Your quoted text comes right after "The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate."
The caster being more athletic doesn't translate to the illusion being able to convince somebody that they should be tripped.
Personally speaking, I wouldn’t allow the illusion to do any other attacks except for strike. However, with the FAQ and wanting the illusion to have some use. So I came up with a compromise: They can do attacks (Like shove, grapple and so on) however they will use the casters skill modifier for the appropriate skill.
My justification for using there skill?
The caster using their own skills in athletics with how a bear would shove creature.
It would overvalue deception, if I were to allow that skill to be used to make shove.
In the end, this is an illusion, not a creature. So if the caster creates a big scary dragon and tries to grapple an enemy yet is only trained in athletics. Will tip off the enemy, “Wow…This big dragon did a poor job of grabbing me….Something is going on.” Which will reinforce the illusions created to be sensible in combat applications.
Depending on the creature I may be willing to provide a +1-circumstance bonus for demoralize/lie checks depending on how big or scary the illusion is. But for physical stuff and attacks? No.
As I said, while I want my players to use this spell. I don’t want this to undervalue spells/classes/abilities that grant minions/companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see how this could be read as if illusions were allowed to do Athletics skill checks. Damage is a game term. It's not any 'effect', it's damage. Results of athletics maneuvers aren't damage in general. So no, no Athletics for illusions. (Yes, there's also this small issue of not having relevant statistics).
Verbal skill checks and feats I'd allow considering it explicitly allows project and imitate voice and that you have basically full control over it and its appearance. Then it's obviously caster's skills in work like Intimidation. Don't know about modifiers though, they could vary. Ah, yes, and it's your normal actions with normal costs.You are misquoting me.
Now I am (fixed your typo). Before I wasn't. I can highlight anything I like. Especially when it's relevant to the topic and the old version was not. You highlight wrong things. And your FAQ is almost irrelevant to the question because it discusses how to use MAP and what is attack rolls. Here the question is different. Yes, they have used a bit vague and too broad language in 'illusion's attacks' writing description, but the key words 'damage', 'attack roll' and, well, ' Strikes' make it clear: it's actually only Strikes.
In short, you are misusing vague language (to be precise, a whole one word) to make a hole in rules and make the spell do something it was never intended to do.
Yes, you can do it as a houserule (though using caster's athletics through this illusion spell is quite absurd), but call it what it is.
Yes.
The FAQ on attacks clarifies that maneuvers are attacks. It does not say that anything with attacks has access to maneuvers (especially a spell manifestation). And were one to emulate a creature with some oddball ability that had the Attack trait, the illusion wouldn't gain access to that either despite having that creature's shape, much like its attacks wouldn't gain a weapon's Deadly or Fatal traits if the illusion appeared to have an appropriate weapon. (Some traits, like Reach or damage type for Resistances/Weaknesses, I'd allow.)The spell itself only mentions access to one kind of attack: Strikes, and only gives a stat for one kind of attack: Strikes. It had to explicitly spell out the creature could even flank.
And as mentioned, allowing maneuvers would be like adding the abilities of Telekinetic Maneuver, also a 2nd Rank spell. And compare to Spiritual Hammer, I mean Weapon, I mean Armament, a 2nd Rank spell that's quite similar in power. Illusory Creature would outperform both far to well if allowed to do maneuvers too.
As for Intimidate, in reading the description I can understand the argument since one can use one's actions to speak through it, so I'm on the fence, but leaning toward yes because I can't think of any exploits beyond the spell's rank. It does increase the range a lot, but for a two-action spell + maintain + one's own actions to perform it, it seems balanced.
The spell itself only mentions access to one kind of attack: Strikes, and only gives a stat for one kind of attack: Strikes. It had to explicitly spell out the creature could even flank.I can add that ranged Strikes also should be allowed. Firstly, there's no restrictions. And secondly the illusion is very fragile when going puff from any hit/fail. With range is has a chance to be more useful and longer.
Ranged Strikes would be a subset of Strikes, so yep. And whatever advantages are gained by attacking at range are balanced by not granting flanking nor taking up tactical space. Attacking from range means only getting direct damage, and poor damage at that. Like most illusion spells, it's better suited for shenanigans & trickery. Heck, a summon spell (perhaps to add a ranged combatant) would at least get an attack when it first manifested.
Ranged Strikes would be a subset of Strikes, so yep. And whatever advantages are gained by attacking at range are balanced by not granting flanking nor taking up tactical space. Attacking from range means only getting direct damage, and poor damage at that. Like most illusion spells, it's better suited for shenanigans & trickery. Heck, a summon spell (perhaps to add a ranged combatant) would at least get an attack when it first manifested.The spell itself only mentions access to one kind of attack: Strikes, and only gives a stat for one kind of attack: Strikes. It had to explicitly spell out the creature could even flank.I can add that ranged Strikes also should be allowed. Firstly, there's no restrictions. And secondly the illusion is very fragile when going puff from any hit/fail. With range is has a chance to be more useful and longer.
Hard disagree. Illusory Creature slaps in combat. The damage is just fine if you have two opportunities to trigger weakness, round after round. It also takes less action than a summon, doesn't need heightening, and lets you basically make up whatever mobility options you want to justify its 500 foot range. You can also bait enemies with it to psuedo stun them. I'm a summon apologist, and even I'll admit illusory creature is better.
Which is why I also don't think it needs illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules. The spell already does an insane amount for 2nd rank.
Which is why I also don't think it needs illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules. The spell already does an insane amount for 2nd rank.You are talking about maneuvers though, yes? Because on that Castilliano and I both agree with you. Ranged attacks definitely aren't 'illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules'. Illusion of an archer or a Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze make ranged attacks very logically.
And whatever advantages are gained by attacking at range are balanced by not granting flanking nor taking up tactical space. Attacking from range means only getting direct damage, and poor damage at that. Like most illusion spells, it's better suited for shenanigans & trickery.While true, I also expected to get some trickery from that: like that archer appearing to an enemy from the opposite side of you maybe would make some of enemies to divert their attention and look into him more closely. Or maybe Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze would be better for that.
Yes. I meant the spell shouldn't do maneuvers.
Which is why I also don't think it needs illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules. The spell already does an insane amount for 2nd rank.You are talking about maneuvers though, yes? Because on that Castilliano and I both agree with you. Ranged attacks definitely aren't 'illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules'. Illusion of an archer or a Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze make ranged attacks very logically.
And whatever advantages are gained by attacking at range are balanced by not granting flanking nor taking up tactical space. Attacking from range means only getting direct damage, and poor damage at that. Like most illusion spells, it's better suited for shenanigans & trickery.While true, I also expected to get some trickery from that: like that archer appearing to an enemy from the opposite side of you maybe would make some of enemies to divert their attention and look into him more closely. Or maybe Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze would be better for that.
See, shenanigan. :-)
Hadn't thought of placing it so far behind a cluster that some might lose actions pursuing your creature, not just attacking it. Make it look like a despised enemy or say something provocative.For triggering a Weakness, I might prefer a Mephit (same Rank, AoE), though if need be one could give an illusory archer a bow that glows/drips/etc. with whatever damage you're trying to emulate. Or boxing-glove arrows. :-)
I love me some illusions too. Really appreciate PF2's upgrade.
Which is why I also don't think it needs illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules. The spell already does an insane amount for 2nd rank.You are talking about maneuvers though, yes? Because on that Castilliano and I both agree with you. Ranged attacks definitely aren't 'illogical added versatility based on flimsy readings of the rules'. Illusion of an archer or a Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze make ranged attacks very logically.
And whatever advantages are gained by attacking at range are balanced by not granting flanking nor taking up tactical space. Attacking from range means only getting direct damage, and poor damage at that. Like most illusion spells, it's better suited for shenanigans & trickery.While true, I also expected to get some trickery from that: like that archer appearing to an enemy from the opposite side of you maybe would make some of enemies to divert their attention and look into him more closely. Or maybe Terrible Spitting Violet-Green Ooze would be better for that.See, shenanigan. :-)
Hadn't thought of placing it so far behind a cluster that some might lose actions pursuing your creature, not just attacking it. Make it look like a despised enemy or say something provocative.
For triggering a Weakness, I might prefer a Mephit (same Rank, AoE), though if need be one could give an illusory archer a bow that glows/drips/etc. with whatever damage you're trying to emulate. Or boxing-glove arrows. :-)
I love me some illusions too. Really appreciate PF2's upgrade.
Now you're thinking in portals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With regard to whether the illusion can grapple, I think we are highlighting the wrong part of the spell text.
The target believes the illusions attacks are real, sure...
The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real,
... but the only effect called out by the spell that it can do with its 'real-seeming' attacks is cause damage.
How I see it, the illusion may feel real to the touch, but that is the limit of its physicality. It explicitly cannot affect the physical world except to deal mental damage, so if it shoves somebody, that person braces for the shove, feels the illusion's body touch their own ... and then nothing. There is not enough mass to the illusion for it to sell the shove.
Perhaps the illusion simply acts as if it's lighter than air and can't budge you or hold you no matter how hard it tries, or perhaps the illusion simply passes through the target when they no-sell the manoeuvre, but the person doesn't move--unless maybe they were already so off-balance that just the idea of something pushing them is enough to mess them up, but that's best reserved for a judgement call when it would be most comedically appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aid would be a "No" since an illusory creature doesn't have a reaction.
Aid would be a "No" since an illusory creature doesn't have a reaction.
True it doesn't. But its not a real creature anyway. Aiding with an illusion is really the caster aiding. There is not enough in the rules to allow it, but your GM might allow you to get away with it.
It's also an excellent body-double spell since impersonating yourself is unlikely to require a check. Budget version of Replicate, basically.