I recommend adding your request to the errata thread. Because, in fact, it really is something that was never clarified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.
You are right regarding the RAW. But the problem is that it is so counterintuitive that many people simply don't accept it, assuming instead that a caster naturally knows about the illusion they created themselves. However, since the RAW treats the caster as being deceived by their own creation—due to the lack of any rule establishing an exception—the experience varies from table to table. That is neither pleasant nor desirable.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.
Or: it was never written because they figured it would be obvious to anyone that you can't "fail to disbelieve" something you know with absolute certainty is an illusion because you're the one creating it.
There's two possible answers here:
1. The rules don't say there is an exception, so there isn't one and you believe your own illusions.
2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.
Claiming that the lack of a clarifying rule is deliberately in favour of your preferred answer is itself an assumption, since we have absolutely no idea why it wasn't stated and there's a pretty straightforward alternative answer.
Definitely worth the errata thread, people have been discussing this for years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.Or: it was never written because they figured it would be obvious to anyone that you can't "fail to disbelieve" something you know with absolute certainty is an illusion because you're the one creating it.
There's two possible answers here:
1. The rules don't say there is an exception, so there isn't one and you believe your own illusions.
2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.Claiming that the lack of a clarifying rule is deliberately in favour of your preferred answer is itself an assumption, since we have absolutely no idea why it wasn't stated and there's a pretty straightforward alternative answer.
Definitely worth the errata thread, people have been discussing this for years.
I don’t know. My common sense says that even if I know it isn’t real in my head cause I made it, I’d be extremely hesitant to walk through a giant wall of fire with lots of heat radiating off it I can feel, or whatever the illusion is. Or for a real life example, even if someone knows a walk-on glass floor like some tourist attractions have is a solid floor you won’t fall through, there are tons of people who just can’t stomach stepping on it because it looks and feels like there’s nothing there or it isn’t safe even if in their head they know it wouldn’t be there with people on it if it wasn’t.
Disbelieving a thing isn’t just thinking “oh, that’s not real!”, it’s actively being able to treat is as if it isn’t real because your mind and body have fully acknowledged and accepted it’s fake on every level. The rules even kinda spell that out in their example text:
“If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it.”
I agree this needs explicit clarification in the FAQ since it keeps being asked though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know. My common sense says that even if I know it isn’t real in my head cause I made it, I’d be extremely hesitant to walk through a giant wall of fire with lots of heat radiating off it I can feel, or whatever the illusion is. Or for a real life example, even if someone knows a walk-on glass floor like some tourist attractions have is a solid floor you won’t fall through, there are tons of people who just can’t stomach stepping on it because it looks and feels like there’s nothing there or it isn’t safe even if in their head they know it wouldn’t be there with people on it if it wasn’t.It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.Or: it was never written because they figured it would be obvious to anyone that you can't "fail to disbelieve" something you know with absolute certainty is an illusion because you're the one creating it.
There's two possible answers here:
1. The rules don't say there is an exception, so there isn't one and you believe your own illusions.
2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.Claiming that the lack of a clarifying rule is deliberately in favour of your preferred answer is itself an assumption, since we have absolutely no idea why it wasn't stated and there's a pretty straightforward alternative answer.
Definitely worth the errata thread, people have been discussing this for years.
Likewise, if I cast a spell creating an illusory wall of fire and a wall of fire appears exactly as my spell says it does, it's a pretty ridiculous outcome to have the character think "who cast that real wall of fire and why is it blocking my illusory one?"
That's an absurd outcome.
Disbelieving a thing isn’t just thinking “oh, that’s not real!”, it’s actively being able to treat is as if it isn’t real because your mind and body have fully acknowledged and accepted it’s fake on every level. The rules even kinda spell that out in their example text:
You still can't see through it in the example because the magic is still blocking the area, but you know it's not a door and you're not going to bounce off it if you try to walk there.
There's also difference between knowing an illusion is present, and knowing the exact specifications and details about it because you're the one creating it. I can know an illusion is somewhere in an area without knowing exactly what the illusion is, and that's a different thing from "Goblin #3 is illusory because I'm the one sustaining Goblin #3 right now."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought they see the illusion so they know it is the illusion they want, at least any illusion with a physical manifestation they can shape.
Why would they need to disbelieve it when they made it? They can dismiss it if it is causing them problems.
I'm not sure where this would apply. Why are you concerned with it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought they see the illusion so they know it is the illusion they want, at least any illusion with a physical manifestation they can shape.
Why would they need to disbelieve it when they made it? They can dismiss it if it is causing them problems.
Illusory Object is not dismissable
I'm not sure where this would apply. Why are you concerned with it?Suppose you cast an Illusory stone wall. If the caster can auto-disbelieve it, then he is immediately hidden to everyone on the other side of the wall but he can see and target them with no wasted actions to disbelieve.
If not, he'd need to either waste actions (potentially several) to ignore it, even possibly having it work against him if the enemies happen to disbelieve while he fails to do so. In which case, he's at a huge disadvantage, trapped blind behind his own illusion getting shot and unable to dismiss it.
You could still make a wall with openings to shoot through and get probably greater cover.
Either way it is tedious for the players and the GM to establish the fundamental functioning of illusions every session in PFS.
I would have the player make a disbelief roll to see through it. They would automatically get the check since they know it is an illusion. Unless the spell says the caster automatically disbelieves the illusion or can control the target of the illusion, I think they would need a check to disbelieve like seeing through their own illusionary wall. That's how I would run it unless the spell or some other rule specifies otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity what are the actual consequences of a caster not disbelieving their own illusion? I can't actually recall a time it would have come up.
To be clear this isn't me poo-pooing the discussion, I actually do not know.
If you use the sane interpretation of disbelieve referring to the actual effects of the illusion, i.e. the sights and sounds it spoofs, then the caster wouldn’t be able to see/hear through their illusion. Which is a bit weird but whatever, not that big a deal.
If you’re one of those people that believes disbelief refers to intellectual knowledge or educated guess that something is real or fake (these people exist, they’re on Reddit), casters not disbelieving their illusions takes the issues with this interpretation and magnifies them to even more farcical levels - “made an illusion of a wall of stone guess I can’t jump through it because I’m just so convinced I cast an actual wall of stone”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought they see the illusion so they know it is the illusion they want, at least any illusion with a physical manifestation they can shape.
Why would they need to disbelieve it when they made it? They can dismiss it if it is causing them problems.
Illusory Object is not dismissable
I'm not sure where this would apply. Why are you concerned with it?Suppose you cast an Illusory stone wall. If the caster can auto-disbelieve it, then he is immediately hidden to everyone on the other side of the wall but he can see and target them with no wasted actions to disbelieve.
If not, he'd need to either waste actions (potentially several) to ignore it, even possibly having it work against him if the enemies happen to disbelieve while he fails to do so. In which case, he's at a huge disadvantage, trapped blind behind his own illusion getting shot and unable to dismiss it.
You could still make a wall with openings to shoot through and get probably greater cover.
Honestly illusions providing cover is just weird. I don’t know what they were thinking adding that PFS note to figment.
Concealment makes sense, they miss cause they can’t see you as well, but if you’re behind an illusionary battlement, they shoot you, and they hit where the battlement is covering your body… well it’s not like the fake battlement can stop a real bullet.
|
We had some interactions with Visions of Danger, which makes a whole area doing loads of damage (8d8 each turn) unless you disbelieve it.
I think we ruled it that the caster itself automatically disbelieves it, but its allies did not. Knowing that it's an illusion is not enough to disbelieve it - but offers an opportunity to try. Not everybody has an easy time to beat the spell DC of a PL+3 with perception though...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.Or: it was never written because they figured it would be obvious to anyone that you can't "fail to disbelieve" something you know with absolute certainty is an illusion because you're the one creating it.
There's two possible answers here:
1. The rules don't say there is an exception, so there isn't one and you believe your own illusions.
2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.Claiming that the lack of a clarifying rule is deliberately in favour of your preferred answer is itself an assumption, since we have absolutely no idea why it wasn't stated and there's a pretty straightforward alternative answer.
Definitely worth the errata thread, people have been discussing this for years.
I don’t know. My common sense says that even if I know it isn’t real in my head cause I made it, I’d be extremely hesitant to walk through a giant wall of fire with lots of heat radiating off it I can feel, or whatever the illusion is. Or for a real life example, even if someone knows a walk-on glass floor like some tourist attractions have is a solid floor you won’t fall through, there are tons of people who just can’t stomach stepping on it because it looks and feels like there’s nothing there or it isn’t safe even if in their head they know it wouldn’t be there with people on it if it wasn’t.
Disbelieving a thing isn’t just thinking “oh, that’s not real!”, it’s actively being able to treat is as if it isn’t real because your mind and body have fully acknowledged and accepted it’s fake on every level. The rules even kinda spell that out in their example text:
“If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature...
I like to use a creative and distinct analogy to interpret actual magical illusions. I compare them to the tricks performed by real-world illusionists.
An illusionist knows their trick is a trick because they are the one performing it; they understand the mechanics involved and why people fall for it. They simply won't believe their own "flying" trick, because they know exactly how the effect is achieved—and, crucially, that they aren't actually flying.
So, an illusionist performing a flying trick—which relies on a nearly invisible wire and good acting—will never be fooled by their own performance.
However, this doesn't necessarily apply to allies—even fellow illusionists. If they don't understand the specific trick, the most they might feel is skepticism; they cannot simply "see through the illusion." To do that, they need to interact with the trick to grasp its inner workings and successfully disbelieve it.
Therefore, logically speaking, it is entirely reasonable for the caster of an illusion spell to automatically disbelieve their own magic.
However, RPGs don't operate on pure logic; they operate on rules. Since the rules don't make an exception for the caster, the caster cannot simply ignore their own illusion without first disbelieving it.
That said, I find it perfectly reasonable to allow a caster to automatically and successfully disbelieve their own illusions—based on the logic mentioned above—as a homebrew rule, without significantly disrupting game balance while maintaining a degree of logical consistency.
In fact, this logic opens up an interesting exception regarding the "disbelieve": allowing the use of skills associated with the magical traditions linked to that specific illusion. Since the rule states "…comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC," I—as the GM—find it quite reasonable for a character to use their knowledge of the magical principles behind an illusion to disbelieve it, potentially even with a reduced DC. This is similar to how an illusionist might analyze another illusionist's work thanks to their own expertise in the field. However, I would still require them to first succeed on a check to identify the spell, or have that same spell prepared or in their repertoire, as established by the rules.
Naturally, this would only apply to illusions that can be disbelieved. If it is an illusion that cannot be disbelieved under the rules, the character might still ignore it knowing it is an illusion, but they wouldn't "see through" it in the way the disbelief rules allow.
I mean….I didn’t create this thread, yet I still think it is an illusion, but I…don’t believe it.
Srsly. Moving on…
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the title : No. They know it's an illusion but that does not mean they automatically reach the state of disbelieving it. RAW the latter requires fulfilling the exact conditions mentioned by the illusion to disbelieve it.
The caster gets no specific shortcut there that I know of.
Which is best for those casters that actually want to enjoy the illusion to its fullest.
|
|
It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.Many GMs are certain of that, others are certain of the opposite, and the rest are completely uncertain. Thus my question.
I've had GMs rule that illusions basically don't work at all, and others who say the caster can automatically make them transparent or not to whoever he wants.
If there was no PFS and people always played with the same GM, then at least there would be consistency. But if you have a character who specializes in illusions and don't know what fundamental things he can do from game to game, that is an issue.
Rule 0 in PFS : always expect the worst and build your PC accordingly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Disbelieving" an illusion and just knowing something is an illusion are not the same thing. This isn't ambiguous in the rules. Illusory Object is one of the best spells in the game without giving its caster free disbelief. With proper spacing and delaying turns, it is simple to make it a no save stun 2 against solo bosses, and with a chance of costing them even more actions. And that's before you get into the out of combat utility.
I don't know about stunned 2, but if you cast the illusion of a wall spiraling around the boss they're likely to spend an action interacting with the illusion.
It's certainly not stunned because they would cause them to lose their turn, so maybe like slowed. Not sure how they imagine 2 actions being wasted exactly, but maybe something I'm not thinking of.
Also, while I agree it's a good spell, it's not exactly without fine print. When you put a wall around enemies, it also makes it hard for allies to see/target them. So using it as suggested against a solo boss is not an obvious tactic unless it's extremely well-orchestrated and pre-prepared, otherwise you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot.
This is why you don’t make it block sound. Then your allies, who have echo receptors, simply shoot through it with no problems. Ideally they either delay after the enemy so it wastes a turn before seeing the arrows, or use stuff with no visible projectile from the caster (many cantrips, firearms).
I don't know about stunned 2, but if you cast the illusion of a wall spiraling around the boss they're likely to spend an action interacting with the illusion.
It's certainly not stunned because they would cause them to lose their turn, so maybe like slowed. Not sure how they imagine 2 actions being wasted exactly, but maybe something I'm not thinking of.
The comparison with stun perhaps is better because they probably become unable to react against enemies outside the ilusion.
Imagine that you imprison your enemies inside a 20ft burst dome, and the PCs are outside of it. No matter if the PCs will do something that would trigger a reaction. Even with the enemy still able to react, due to the lack of Line of Sight and Line of Effect (this one effectively exists, but the creature needs to know that it exists to try something), they won't use it because they don't know that the triggered action is happening, unless they already know (recognize the spell as a reaction or have it prepared) that it's an illusory object spell. In this, they know that it's an illusion; they still have to deal with a DC11 check to attack without seeing the target.
Also, while I agree it's a good spell, it's not exactly without fine print. When you put a wall around enemies, it also makes it hard for allies to see/target them. So using it as suggested against a solo boss is not an obvious tactic unless it's extremely well-orchestrated and pre-prepared, otherwise you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot.This is why you don’t make it block sound. Then your allies, who have echo receptors, simply shoot through it with no problems. Ideally they either delay after the enemy so it wastes a turn before seeing the arrows, or use stuff with no visible projectile from the caster (many cantrips, firearms).
You can also create a lattice dome (or similar cage) that allows everyone to see through to the other side—maintaining line of sight and line of effect—while still making enemies perceive it as an obstacle blocking the path. It is a great solution for protecting spellcasters and ranged attackers without hindering them (in fact, it is often better to use this on allies rather than enemies).
I don't know about stunned 2, but if you cast the illusion of a wall spiraling around the boss they're likely to spend an action interacting with the illusion.
It's certainly not stunned because they would cause them to lose their turn, so maybe like slowed. Not sure how they imagine 2 actions being wasted exactly, but maybe something I'm not thinking of.
The comparison with stun perhaps is better because they probably become unable to react against enemies outside the ilusion.
Imagine that you imprison your enemies inside a 20ft burst dome, and the PCs are outside of it. No matter if the PCs will do something that would trigger a reaction. Even with the enemy still able to react, due to the lack of Line of Sight and Line of Effect (this one effectively exists, but the creature needs to know that it exists to try something), they won't use it because they don't know that the triggered action is happening, unless they already know (recognize the spell as a reaction or have it prepared) that it's an illusory object spell. In this, they know that it's an illusion; they still have to deal with a DC11 check to attack without seeing the target.
You can also create a lattice dome (or similar cage) that allows everyone to see through to the other side—maintaining line of sight...Also, while I agree it's a good spell, it's not exactly without fine print. When you put a wall around enemies, it also makes it hard for allies to see/target them. So using it as suggested against a solo boss is not an obvious tactic unless it's extremely well-orchestrated and pre-prepared, otherwise you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot.This is why you don’t make it block sound. Then your allies, who have echo receptors, simply shoot through it with no problems. Ideally they either delay after the enemy so it wastes a turn before seeing the arrows, or use stuff with no visible projectile from the caster (many cantrips, firearms).
I’m fond of making a roiling pitch black sphere of black darkness fog to inflict effectively blinded on the enemies. It’s better than the actual darkness spell because it works on enemies with darkvision. If the disbelieve (which they usually have no reason to even try, given that it looks like the darkness spell), they’re still getting concealed from it as well - at least, if any illusion still gives concealed with disbelief, given that this is the maximally strong case for it.
Your buddies just shoot through it normally because they have a non-visual precise sense, of course.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets follow the chain of logic of "I don't automatically disbelieve my own illusions".
If we assume that we can be duped by our own illusions, are we fooled by our own disguises? If I disguise myself, and later see myself in a mirror, do I need to succeed in a check to recognize it's me or will I think it's just someone on the other side of a pane of glass mocking me by doing the same movements? What about a party member I disguise? Will I also not be able to recognize them? Will I think they are a stranger?
What about when I use Stealth to conceal an object on my person? If I succeed, do I suddenly not know where I hid the object, or that I even have the object at all? Do I need to beat my stealth DC with a perception check to find an object that I hid on my own person? If I hide an object inside something, like a sword in a bale of hay on a cart, do I forget where I put the sword? Does putting a blanket over an object make me think the object ceases to exist as if I'm a literal baby?
What about deception? Do I believe my own lies? If I'm lying about who I am, do I then think I actually am that person? If I'm using the feat that allows me to use magic items and make people think I'm casting spells, do I believe that I really AM casting spells unless I succeed at a check to recognize the truth just as onlookers must do?
In this hobby we spend so much time obsessing over the details of word placement, and what it means that there is or is not a comma here or there and how that can change the meaning of something. We are all prone to overthink things, that's part of what games like this train our brain to do. The truth of the matter is that some things really are so obvious they don't warrant mentioning.
Here's how I see it. I cast an illusion, I know I cast it, and more often than not the spell lets me decide what the illusion looks like and what it does. I don't need to disbelieve it because I never risked believing it in the first place. I think that is the basis from which to start from and beyond that, there might be edge classes where I could believe my own illusion such as: persistent illusions that I might happen on again, or that might change in ways I don't control, or illusions that do their own thing independent of me after casting them to the extent that I might wonder if I really did make it after all. If someone caused me to be confused I might forget about an illusion I cast (though if that's the table ruling the same should apply to enemies that disbelieving an illusion and later became confused). I think those are exceptions that should happen sparingly though.
If we assume that we can be duped by our own illusions, are we fooled by our own disguises? If I disguise myself, and later see myself in a mirror, do I need to succeed in a check to recognize it's me or will I think it's just someone on the other side of a pane of glass mocking me by doing the same movements? What about a party member I disguise? Will I also not be able to recognize them? Will I think they are a stranger?
Not directly relevant to the main topic of discussion, but I think this would make for a neat character concept, e.g. a pride runelord who buys into their own hype. Obviously this shouldn't be a general case, and I personally don't believe it is when it comes to illusions, but there is a roleplaying niche to be had all the same.
In this hobby we spend so much time obsessing over the details of word placement, and what it means that there is or is not a comma here or there and how that can change the meaning of something. We are all prone to overthink things, that's part of what games like this train our brain to do. The truth of the matter is that some things really are so obvious they don't warrant mentioning.
I agree with this, broadly speaking. I do think that language is such that a single comma can really make a difference, as with the classic example of: "I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God," and Pathfinder does tend to make certain obvious things explicit, but this is one of those cases where the issue is more that some common thing could be made explicitly obvious, and I can't think of a GM who would rule in good faith that casters are fooled by their own illusions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets follow the chain of logic of "I don't automatically disbelieve my own illusions".
If we assume that we can be duped by our own illusions, are we fooled by our own disguises? If I disguise myself, and later see myself in a mirror, do I need to succeed in a check to recognize it's me or will I think it's just someone on the other side of a pane of glass mocking me by doing the same movements? What about a party member I disguise? Will I also not be able to recognize them? Will I think they are a stranger?
What about when I use Stealth to conceal an object on my person? If I succeed, do I suddenly not know where I hid the object, or that I even have the object at all? Do I need to beat my stealth DC with a perception check to find an object that I hid on my own person? If I hide an object inside something, like a sword in a bale of hay on a cart, do I forget where I put the sword? Does putting a blanket over an object make me think the object ceases to exist as if I'm a literal baby?
What about deception? Do I believe my own lies? If I'm lying about who I am, do I then think I actually am that person? If I'm using the feat that allows me to use magic items and make people think I'm casting spells, do I believe that I really AM casting spells unless I succeed at a check to recognize the truth just as onlookers must do?
In this hobby we spend so much time obsessing over the details of word placement, and what it means that there is or is not a comma here or there and how that can change the meaning of something. We are all prone to overthink things, that's part of what games like this train our brain to do. The truth of the matter is that some things really are so obvious they don't warrant mentioning.
Here's how I see it. I cast an illusion, I know I cast it, and more often than not the spell lets me decide what the illusion looks like and what it does. I don't need to disbelieve it because I never risked believing it in the first place. I think that is the basis from which to start from and...
Making a save to see through a wall is different from casting a disguise. I would think you would still fully see the disguise so you could make sure it was correct.
What does disbelieve do? Illusory disguise does nothing to you even if you believe it as in fully see it.
I sort of understand wanting to see through your illusory wall or curtain, but most of the time this stuff doesn't even come up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m fond of making a roiling pitch black sphere of black darkness fog to inflict effectively blinded on the enemies. It’s better than the actual darkness spell because it works on enemies with darkvision. If the disbelieve (which they usually have no reason to even try, given that it looks like the darkness spell), they’re still getting concealed from it as well - at least, if any illusion still gives concealed with disbelief, given that this is the maximally strong case for it.
Your buddies just shoot through it normally because they have a non-visual precise sense, of course.
Technically, a black dome doesn't work because most illusion spells—including *Illusory Object*—cannot block light (it passes through the illusion just like anything else). Consequently, you end up with a black dome, yet the characters inside remain illuminated and can see one another. While this won't automatically dispel the illusion, it makes the deception obvious enough for them to try and see through it.
An interesting solution is to create a white dome instead when in well-lit areas. This makes it harder for enemies to dismiss the effect as an illusion—especially with 2nd-rank illusions that incorporate tactile sensations. However, preventing the creatures inside the dome from seeing each other is effectively impossible for the spell alone, though it could be combined with darkness spells to achieve that effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, a black dome doesn't work because most illusion spells—including *Illusory Object*—cannot block light (it passes through the illusion just like anything else).
The rules do indicate that illusions block vision, so I don't know that I'd pull out the "technically" on this one. (But I also wouldn't expect to be able to reliably replicate heightened Darkness.)
Realistically, part of running an illusion-heavy character is checking with the GM if you want to bust out anything that relies on edge-cases. They're flexible spells, but you probably don't want to rely on anything overly technical without checking first. Anything where an illusion interacts with light or illumination is something to check with the GM. That stuff gets weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rule as a GM with illusions is that I love the idea, and will be fairly permissive one time with any idea for them, but that their purpose is creative deceptions and doing the same thing with them over and over again is just trying to replace a set of other spells with one, usually lower rank spell. So rather than me allowing something one time to stretch the effect of an illusion past what is arguably possible as a sign of precedent, it is more like me saying no, but this time Nethys approves and empowers your spell.
Also, there is is a difference between knowing something is an illusion and being able to disbelieve an illusion and see through the magic. As a GM, I do not let the caster see through/disbelieve without actively doing so, but I do let my parties agree to have a special code word worked out in advance so that the caster can inform the party “this is an illusion” so the can all be in the same boat without having to be able to identify the spell.
Realistically, part of running an illusion-heavy character is checking with the GM if you want to bust out anything that relies on edge-cases. They're flexible spells, but you probably don't want to rely on anything overly technical without checking first. Anything where an illusion interacts with light or illumination is something to check with the GM. That stuff gets weird.Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.
Though I'm sure there still can be exploits.
Definitely agreed on "not an object", although I'm fine without an official clarification. It's okay to have some open-ended spells.
Fun thing to consider: what happens when you use Illusory Object to make a campfire in a dark room?
I’m fond of making a roiling pitch black sphere of black darkness fog to inflict effectively blinded on the enemies. It’s better than the actual darkness spell because it works on enemies with darkvision. If the disbelieve (which they usually have no reason to even try, given that it looks like the darkness spell), they’re still getting concealed from it as well - at least, if any illusion still gives concealed with disbelief, given that this is the maximally strong case for it.
Your buddies just shoot through it normally because they have a non-visual precise sense, of course.
Technically, a black dome doesn't work because most illusion spells—including *Illusory Object*—cannot block light (it passes through the illusion just like anything else). Consequently, you end up with a black dome, yet the characters inside remain illuminated and can see one another. While this won't automatically dispel the illusion, it makes the deception obvious enough for them to try and see through it.
An interesting solution is to create a white dome instead when in well-lit areas. This makes it harder for enemies to dismiss the effect as an illusion—especially with 2nd-rank illusions that incorporate tactile sensations. However, preventing the creatures inside the dome from seeing each other is effectively impossible for the spell alone, though it could be combined with darkness spells to achieve that effect.
It’s a solid object, colored black. It blocks vision as much as any other illusion of a solid object would, unless you’re saying that none would. It’s just meant to look like a darkness spell.
Realistically, part of running an illusion-heavy character is checking with the GM if you want to bust out anything that relies on edge-cases. They're flexible spells, but you probably don't want to rely on anything overly technical without checking first. Anything where an illusion interacts with light or illumination is something to check with the GM. That stuff gets weird.Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.
Though I'm sure there still can be exploits.
You’re not making an illusion of darkness. You’re making an illusion of a solid object colored black with whatever cosmetic affects (illusionary object can do animations, spell says so) help it superficially look like a darkness spell. It’s basically just an animated matte painting on a black sphere, as a starting point.
Ok, that's better. But you are getting automatic disbelieve checks each turn just for being inside of it because you constantly interact with it. That would be enough I suppose. Being inside illusory wall would work mostly the same for example.You’re not making an illusion of darkness. You’re making an illusion of a solid object colored black with whatever cosmetic affects (illusionary object can do animations, spell says so) help it superficially look like a darkness spell. It’s basically just an animated matte painting on a black sphere, as a starting point.Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.
Though I'm sure there still can be exploits.
An illusionary wall you get disbelieve checks for being inside it because a wall being walk through is inconsistent with being a wall. The fake darkness/fog/smog/whatever visual effect you’re doing is supposed to be intangible, there’s nothing to feel. There’s no inconsistency to notice, no real interaction with the illusion in the way there is for putting your hand through a fake wall. Maybe you could feel a lack of fog condensation feeling, if it was fog, but rank two illusionary object fixes this.
Fun thing to consider: what happens when you use Illusory Object to make a campfire in a dark room?You can't even see it unless you have darkvision. You can feel warmth or even burning if inside it if it's rank 2+ I suppose.
Idk about that, I agree it wouldn’t cast light that actually lets you see things but you might be able to see the illusion itself. It’s already directly tricking your senses.