I'm currently running a Blood Lords campaign for some newbies, and I was looking for a little advice as to how to rule the Figment spell (and, consequently, other illusions) cast from a Tangible Dream psychic.
As it stands right now, the past couple of sessions, I've allowed Figment to basically count as more or less a summon to tank hits from the I figured that they're single-minded enough that they'll just swing away at the figment until they succeed at a perception check vs the caster's DC or something else presents itself as a more obvious threat. However, this has turned out incredibly powerful, mechanically, since the figment is tanking quite a few actions from low-perception enemies.
I'd like some input and advice on whether or not the way I'm running this is reasonable or not. It's felt very powerful, but it might just be a matter of being good against the type of enemies they're facing. It's felt powerful enough that it might warrant a nerf, but at the same time, I don't want to disenfranchise the Psychic player for doing something that makes sense.
I advice using Figment cantrip as a cantrip according to its text:
Figment wrote: You create a simple illusory sound or vision. A sound adds the auditory trait to the spell and the sound can't include intelligible words or elaborate music. A vision adds the visual trait, can be no larger than a 5-foot cube, and is clearly crude and undetailed if viewed from within 15 feet. When you Cast or Sustain the Spell, you can attempt to Create a Diversion with the illusion, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your Deception check. If the attempt fails against a creature, that creature disbelieves the figment. As for Tangible Dream psychic, for a focus point they get this:
Tangible Dream Psychic wrote: Amp When you amp the spell, you can create a particularly distracting illusion as part of its normal effects. Choose an unoccupied square within the spell's range. The illusion in that square provides flanking for a single melee attack made before the beginning of your next turn. If you Sustain the spell, the details of the illusion change and shift to keep your enemies unsettled; the flanking illusion's duration extends until the beginning of your next turn and you can move it to any unoccupied square in the spell's range. The flanking illusion can't provide its benefit against any creature who has disbelieved the figment. Do you see anywhere here that the illusion acts like a creature and demands being attacked as a creature? There's nothing. The only direct mechanical effects are a way to Hide (and possibly sneak away) and allowing flanking for one attack per Cast/Sustain (for a focus point). I suggest sticking to that.
If the player wants an illusory creature, they must use Illusory creature. Yes, it's a normal slot spell (accessible to a psychic). Why being this restrictive? You already have the exact reason and experienced it yourself: it's way too powerful.
If you want a lore explanation - even zombies with their mindless murder instinct can feel that simple Figment is not a real creature they want to kill. Even when it distracts them. Illusory creature is more powerful and is made specifically to deceive anyone.
(BTW both Figment and Illusory creature work on mindless zombies because they aren't 'mental'. Mental damage of IC won't work though. Good thing they are too stupid to notice this most of the time.)
the illusion is "crude and undetailed" from within 15ft.
So, initially the zombies may approach the illusion, but as soon as they are within 15ft, they can see that it's not actually a creature.
So, for the same reason zombies don't mindlessly attack random stones and trees, they would keep moving towards what they perceive (mindless as they are) as a "creature".
edit:
so clever use of the cantrip may cause the zombies to switch movement patterns, or make them move towards a desired destination, but during combat, it would be almost impossible to fool them to the extent of actually trying to hit what they see is not a creature.
Agreed with others, a zombie within 15ft "knowns" it's not a real creature. They're not going to bother attacking it or even continue moving toward it. Though a figment placed beyond 15ft might attract them to go investigate and move towards that figment.
Letting it count as a summon or take a hit is outright way beyond its intended power level.
Agree with all three above, the 'crude and undetailed' description should mean that most close adversaries are not fooled for long, if at all.
The mechanical effects are already specified: +2 circumstance bonus to Create a Diversion, and provides flanking for the amped version. If a GM wants to reward creative use, I would start with those effects and expand out thematically. So maybe a really interesting player description would be a reason to allow it used to feint (figment of my blade going elsewhere), or maybe it creates a diversion for one of your party members instead (figment makes it temporarily turn away from Bob). The notion that a further away adversary may spend and action moving towards it is cool too. That's a good creative use.
The only time I would let it suck up an attack action from some close combatant is for some easily fooled unthinking animal and a trigger they are known to go after. If you've got a house cat and your figment is of a moving red dot, sure, they waste a strike on it. There's an angry bull, okay, figment a moving cape. But those circumstances would be pretty limited, and you at best get only one use out of it.
I get where you all are coming from, and I'd agree with a lot of this for most intelligent creatures, but less intelligent creatures, especially mindless ones like zombies, feel to me like they are more easily fooled, which is where I guess I'm getting tripped up.
Something looking "crude" is pretty subjective. I mean, the guy casting it is a poppet and already looks "crude" as-is, as he's a walking, talking, stuffed voodoo doll. The figment might not look all that different from him, if he tries to imitate himself.
And it being "crude" as a justification for ignoring the effects entirely within 15ft kind of takes away the efficacy of it counting as flanking as per the psychic amp, no? If it being "crude" is a justification for being able to ignore it, why is it enough to still flank?
I know I'm basically saying, "Please help me," and then when helped, I'm saying, "No, not like that!" and I know how annoying that can be, so I apologize. However, the "just don't let allow creative illusion use" feels like the kind of ruling that might lead to illusions just being bad in my game (as they are in so many others.)I'm worried about that as much as I'm worried about figment being a catch-all solution to every problem.
Ajaxius wrote: I get where you all are coming from, and I'd agree with a lot of this for most intelligent creatures, but less intelligent creatures, especially mindless ones like zombies, feel to me like they are more easily fooled, which is where I guess I'm getting tripped up.
Something looking "crude" is pretty subjective. I mean, the guy casting it is a poppet and already looks "crude" as-is, as he's a walking, talking, stuffed voodoo doll. The figment might not look all that different from him, if he tries to imitate himself.
And it being "crude" as a justification for ignoring the effects entirely within 15ft kind of takes away the efficacy of it counting as flanking as per the psychic amp, no? If it being "crude" is a justification for being able to ignore it, why is it enough to still flank?
I know I'm basically saying, "Please help me," and then when helped, I'm saying, "No, not like that!" and I know how annoying that can be, so I apologize. However, the "just don't let allow creative illusion use" feels like the kind of ruling that might lead to illusions just being bad in my game (as they are in so many others.)I'm worried about that as much as I'm worried about figment being a catch-all solution to every problem.
Figment doesn't move so the zombie is looking at an unmoving statue, and one that's "obviously crude and undetailed from within 15ft"
Seems likely it would just ignore it once it gets within 15ft.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ajaxius wrote: Something looking "crude" is pretty subjective. It is, you're right.
But I think the wise thing to do in a subjective case is to let the mechanics justify the description rather than letting the description justify new mechanics not mentioned in the entry. So in a case like this, I would GM it as "because it only gives Cause a Distraction, it's too crude to result in an attack." Not "because it creates an image, it can do many more encounter actions than just Cause a Distraction."
Quote: I mean, the guy casting it is a poppet and already looks "crude" as-is, as he's a walking, talking, stuffed voodoo doll. Yeah but zombies in movies and books don't fall for crude scarecrows. Maybe they smell the brains or something, but whatever in-house justification you want to make, I wouldn't give Figment, a cantrip, the ability to distract the same enemy into attacking it over and over again - even a zombie. That is, in my opinion, way way more than what it's intended to do.
Quote: If it being "crude" is a justification for being able to ignore it, why is it enough to still flank? So again, I would suggest as a GM you go from mechanics given -> in-game description, rather than description -> mechanics never given.
But in this case it's easy to come up with an in-game justification for the difference; flanking means simply that they are distracted from the attack. That could be caused by a sudden 'bang!' or bright flash. There's a much wider variety of "audio/visual things that can temporarily distract" than "a/v things that look realistically enough like a creature to get something to attack it."
Quote: However, the "just don't let allow creative illusion use" feels like the kind of ruling that might lead to illusions just being bad in my game (as they are in so many others.)I'm worried about that as much as I'm worried about figment being a catch-all solution to every problem. How about making it a very easy will save then? Spell DC -5 or something? The easiness representing how using figment to create an illusory creature is just that much cruder and less likely to fool a monster compared to a Rank 2 illusory creature, a spell designed to do exactly what your PC is trying to do.
Okay, you want a nerf, but not "just run it how it's written".
I propose that it's only convincing enough to fill them up close while they're distracted. If a zombie is flanked by the illusion, you flip a coin for which way it attacks. No more leaving zombies attacking it while the party snipers safely from afar or whatever, but it's still negating half the attacks.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ajaxius wrote: I get where you all are coming from, and I'd agree with a lot of this for most intelligent creatures, but less intelligent creatures, especially mindless ones like zombies, feel to me like they are more easily fooled, which is where I guess I'm getting tripped up.
Something looking "crude" is pretty subjective. I mean, the guy casting it is a poppet and already looks "crude" as-is, as he's a walking, talking, stuffed voodoo doll. The figment might not look all that different from him, if he tries to imitate himself.
And it being "crude" as a justification for ignoring the effects entirely within 15ft kind of takes away the efficacy of it counting as flanking as per the psychic amp, no? If it being "crude" is a justification for being able to ignore it, why is it enough to still flank?
I know I'm basically saying, "Please help me," and then when helped, I'm saying, "No, not like that!" and I know how annoying that can be, so I apologize. However, the "just don't let allow creative illusion use" feels like the kind of ruling that might lead to illusions just being bad in my game (as they are in so many others.)I'm worried about that as much as I'm worried about figment being a catch-all solution to every problem.
Ask yourself this:
If another player decided to carry a cardboard cut of a person, would you have the zombies attack that instead of the person? Because that's what Figment produces, a "crude and undetailed" thing.
As soon as someone is within 15ft of the figment, he instantly knows that it's a bogus item.
As for how "intelligent" mindless creatures are, I'll reiterate my previous comment: You don't see them mindlessly wack on rocks while there are creatures around, do you? So they are "intelligent" enough to understand what's a creature, and what's not.
p.s.
going back to your comment about how the character himself is crude and could use it figment to make somethng like him:
No he can't. The Figment is without details.
shroudb wrote: As for how "intelligent" mindless creatures are, I'll reiterate my previous comment: You don't see them mindlessly wack on rocks while there are creatures around, do you? So they are "intelligent" enough to understand what's a creature, and what's not. Yeah, exactly. Their unlife gives them murderous instincts, like animals have, but not exactly. And that is not even my invention, more like interpretation or even citation of official lore.
Yeah, mindless isn't really mindless.
Something without a mind couldn't move. It couldn't make attacks. It couldn't distinguish between undead and non-undead.
Zombies can do all those things.
Easl said wrote: But I think the wise thing to do in a subjective case is to let the mechanics justify the description rather than letting the description justify new mechanics not mentioned in the entry. That's definitely a strong point, but I generally consider the whole text to be mechanics. I don't think "flavor text" really exists, insofar as game options are concerned. Otherwise, Elixir of Life could heal undead creatures.
Easl said wrote: Yeah but zombies in movies and books don't fall for crude scarecrows. Scooterscoot said wrote: Figment doesn't move so the zombie is looking at an unmoving statue Wouldn't they? Nothing says it doesn't move, at least within its own space. In fact, Tangible Dream psychic explicitly does make it move to another space.
The way Figment is worded, I imagine it to have simplistic movements, like randomly jittering around. That's why it works to Create a Diversion. I see it more or less an uncanny, silent, dancing hologram, rather than a completely still statue like some others claim it is.
Easl said wrote: How about making it a very easy will save then? Spell DC -5 or something? I do actually like this solution. Previously, I was having a zombie spend an attack on the figment, and the subsequently make a free Perception check to disbelieve (as I understand is RAW for interacting with illusions), but a +0 Perception modifier gave them only a 20% chance to bypass it, and them being slowed meant they lost half their actions doing so even on a success. The party was really smart, and it basically only worked for a round, but getting a whole round up on them made the fights a cakewalk.
Maybe a -5 makes it more reasonable... but then again, the perception check of higher monsters might not make that necessary. Can I generally expect higher-level mindless monsters to keep their perception high enough to make this a non-problem?
QuidEst said wrote: I propose that it's only convincing enough to fill them up close while they're distracted. If a zombie is flanked by the illusion, you flip a coin for which way it attacks. No more leaving zombies attacking it while the party snipers safely from afar or whatever, but it's still negating half the attacks. Yeah, that might be the way forward, too - just an automatic success on the perception to disbelieve after a single attack.
shroudb said wrote: If another player decided to carry a cardboard cut of a person, would you have the zombies attack that instead of the person? Because that's what Figment produces, a "crude and undetailed" thing. Against something as mindless as a zombie, maybe with a solid performance check and the party was sufficiently hidden while somehow manipulating the cut-out from a distance.
shroudb said wrote: As for how "intelligent" mindless creatures are, I'll reiterate my previous comment: You don't see them mindlessly wack on rocks while there are creatures around, do you? So they are "intelligent" enough to understand what's a creature, and what's not. Rocks don't imitate creatures. Unless they do - then they're an elemental. ;)
Errenor said wrote: Their unlife gives them murderous instincts, like animals have, but not exactly. Claxon said wrote: Something without a mind couldn't move. It couldn't make attacks. It couldn't distinguish between undead and non-undead. Sure, I'm not going so far as to have zombies attack inanimate objects, but a figment specifically seems pseudo-animate to me. Even if it's just a dancing cut-out of a person, I've seen cats (more sentient than zombies... I think...) chase those little fishing-pole-like toys with something that looks sufficiently prey-like at the end of a rope.
---
All this being said, I really appreciate all the input on this. It's helped me to organize my own thoughts on the matter. Thank you all! :)
If the objective is to reward creativity at GM discretion I would consider the following:
The Tangible Dream
Your minor illusions shift and dance. The range of figment increases to 60 feet. When you Sustain the spell, you can move the apparent sound or vision up to 15 feet. You can then attempt to Create a Diversion as usual. Those creatures who disbelieved the illusion aren't affected by this diversion. Your figment also gains the following amp.
Amp When you amp the spell, you can create a particularly distracting illusion as part of its normal effects. Choose an unoccupied square within the spell's range. The illusion in that square provides flanking for a single melee attack made before the beginning of your next turn. If you Sustain the spell, the details of the illusion change and shift to keep your enemies unsettled; the flanking illusion's duration extends until the beginning of your next turn and you can move it to any unoccupied square in the spell's range. The flanking illusion can't provide its benefit against any creature who has disbelieved the figment.
Create a Diversion
Create a Diversion has the mental trait.
Zombie Trait
These undead are mindless rotting corpses that hunger for living flesh.
Illusory Creature
This spell has the Olfactory trait.
Vague Senses
A character also has many vague senses—ones that can alert you that something is there but aren't useful for zeroing in on it to determine exactly what it is. The most useful of these for a typical character is the sense of smell. At best, a vague sense can be used to detect the presence of an unnoticed creature, making it undetected. Even then, the vague sense isn't sufficient to make the creature hidden or observed.
Scent
Scent involves sensing creatures or objects by smell and is usually a vague sense. The range is listed in the ability, and it functions only if the creature or object being detected emits an aroma (for instance, incorporeal creatures usually do not exude an aroma).
TLDR;
Not all zombies are mindless(Husk Zombie), the mindless zombies would not be impacted by Create a Diversion because of the mental trait. All zombies hunger for living flesh, and with that as their entire motivation I could imagine it walking up to the Figment or within 15' of it. At which point the Figment not having the Olfactory trait, and the Zombie having scent as a vague sense would no longer be driven by the instinct to eat it's flesh.
Just depends on how you run combat decisions for the creatures, and how realistic you feel the course of action would be for the creature. The fact that Create a Diversion doesn't work to distract them from you as a player because of the mental trait means that they would just ignore this thing entirely once within 15' of it.
Given that the use was creative and well intended, and I don't expect players to have read all those rules, I would be lenient the first time it was used in that manner, award a hero point for creativity, and explain that moving forward creatures wouldn't be using attacks on Figments. Creative uses of it outside combat and pre-combat because it has the subtle trait I would reward in some way.
Typically anything a player does outside of RAW that is creative is going to get rewarded from me within reason. If there is something I can tell I am going to deny based on RAW, I will ask the player what they are intending to do, explain the RAW, explain how to achieve the outcome they were hoping for, let them pick a different action entirely or switch to the more appropriate one to achieve the outcome they wanted.
|
