PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Interacting with Illusions



Cedrass
2009-07-02, 02:14 AM
Ok, I know it must be the billionth thread about it, but the search feature is, huh, suboptimal? So I'm making an other thread about it, hope I don't piss anyone :smallconfused:.

My DM and me were wondering the other day how he should work with illusions in the next campaign since I'm (finally) doing a Beguiler and plan on focusing on those. Now, here's what the SRD tells us:

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

Well, great but what is "interact with it in some fashion."? Looking at it intensely counts or not? If one of the baddies disbelieves it, do the other ones receive a bonus on their save? Do my teammates see the Illusion so they don't just run into it and ruin it?

Long story short (or tl;dr for those forum savvy): I really wish they'd be more clear about it, and how should we (my DM and me) deal with those?

TheOOB
2009-07-02, 02:54 AM
Really it's whenever the DM thinks the players(or NPCs) should get a save, however, as a general rule whenever an illusion would inhibit someone from doing something, a save, as well as when interaction is obvious.

For example, if you have an illusion disguising your appearance and you are walking down the street, the average person wouldn't make a save, but the guard on the street corner looking for trouble would, as would the innkeeper who you talk to rent a room, or the beggar woman who asks you for coin.

Similarly, if you hide your party behind an illusory wall, the average person walking by wouldn't get a save, but the guards chasing you would, your illusion is inhibiting their ability to find you.

Autopsibiofeeder
2009-07-02, 03:17 AM
If the baddy communicates that there is an illusion, his allies get a +4 bonus on the save. The rest is pretty much up to DM discretion, or DM-player agreement.

For what it is worth: As DM I always regard an Illusion not from the perspective of the caster or the Illusion, but from the perspective of the person encountering it. As long as that person has no reason to suspect an illusion, just looking at it or being near it does not allow a save.

Suspecting illusions or interacting with it allows for saves, depending somewhat on the paranoia level of that person: who on earth goes around assuming anything could be an illusion?
A bard trying to hire a room at an inn while using change self does not grant the innkeeper a save, imo, because he interacts with 'just another' person, not the illusion per se. Now, was the bard a known caster and kicked out of the inn to never come back the day before it changes. Or when the bard pretends to be someone of importance the innkeeper knows.
That's my take on it :).

Cyrion
2009-07-02, 09:40 AM
Also consider whether the illusion is changing something familiar. A new wall or flaming pit in the middle of a room the monster passes through is likely to rais suspicion.

weenie
2009-07-02, 09:53 AM
I think that having saves on illusions is pretty wrong. Wouldn't a simple spot check against the DC of the illusion suffice? Plus a bonus or penalty regarding on how much attention people are paying to the illusion of course. Oh, and automatic disbelief when thrown stuff simply passes through illusions would be a good idea too.

Riffington
2009-07-02, 09:53 AM
Well, great but what is "interact with it in some fashion."? Looking at it intensely counts or not?

My take is that illusions always have some kind of flaws, but those flaws do not usually become evident because people see what they expect to see. If you get out of that mode and into "looking carefully" (for whatever reason), then you get a save. That could be because you are suspicious, because you are ogling the illusory being, because you are thinking about how to paint the illusory object, whatever. As long as you have moved out of the everyday mode into paying full attention to detail, you get the save.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-02, 10:20 AM
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
Well, great but what is "interact with it in some fashion."? Looking at it intensely counts or not? You've got some extra help (that you probably weren't aware of) in the rules for Spot:
Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. So if they ask pointed questions about what they see, or say "I disbelieve" on the turn when they first have line of sight to something, then that counts as studying carefully. After that, they must use a move action Spot check to notice anything hinky that they didn't see previously. If they don't say they're using a move action to make a new Spot check, they don't get a save until they actually try to touch the illusion.

Jergmo
2009-07-02, 10:39 AM
Actually, this is something I was wondering about as well. I have an idea for one sick puppy of a villain who is an Illusionist, and sculpts Illusions that are geared around the purpose of causing the poor saps who see 'em to make SAN checks.

If the PC's just walked up and they saw one of his incredibly disturbing illusions, which I probably shouldn't detail here, would they get a save if it isn't an illusion of something that's trying to be an active threat to them?

Cyclocone
2009-07-02, 10:52 AM
In my group we use a rule that goes something along these lines:

"Illusions are like girls (or boys YMMW). Oogeling them isn't 'interacting'. talking to them etc. is."

Otherwise you couldn't scare an orc army away with illusions of demon lords, 'cause 5% of them would always save.
But i guess it all comes down to how powerfull/versatile/borked you want illusions to be. (IMO, always giving saves is lame. Illusion and Transmutation is awesome for creative types, so don't make them play conjurers like everyone else:smalltongue:.)

SensFan
2009-07-02, 11:03 AM
A bard trying to hire a room at an inn while using change self does not grant the innkeeper a save, imo, because he interacts with 'just another' person, not the illusion per se. Now, was the bard a known caster and kicked out of the inn to never come back the day before it changes. Or when the bard pretends to be someone of importance the innkeeper knows.
That's my take on it :).
Sorry, but I think that makes no sense.

Are you really saying you could have a conversation with someone, and sell them a room, without any chance of figuring out its an illusion?

Riffington
2009-07-02, 11:10 AM
Otherwise you couldn't scare an orc army away with illusions of demon lords, 'cause 5% of them would always save.

If you ogle demon lords, you are a braver man than I.

In general, an orc sees a demon and averts his eyes after that. If he's mentally counting the scales on the guy's chest, he gets a save. If it happens to be an actual demon, he probably also gets eaten.

tyckspoon
2009-07-02, 11:25 AM
Sorry, but I think that makes no sense.

Are you really saying you could have a conversation with someone, and sell them a room, without any chance of figuring out its an illusion?

Yes. Why not? It's a person. He wants to rent a room. This is an entirely normal situation for an innkeeper. If he has a reason to be particularly wary of something, maybe he gets some other sort of check (if he's on the lookout for somebody he just kicked out last night, give him a Sense Motive to realize the 'stranger' has exactly the same mannerisms as that damn bard) but I don't see any reason he should get a save against the illusion itself.

SensFan
2009-07-02, 11:31 AM
Yes. Why not? It's a person. He wants to rent a room. This is an entirely normal situation for an innkeeper. If he has a reason to be particularly wary of something, maybe he gets some other sort of check (if he's on the lookout for somebody he just kicked out last night, give him a Sense Motive to realize the 'stranger' has exactly the same mannerisms as that damn bard) but I don't see any reason he should get a save against the illusion itself.
Because he's interacting with the person; talking for a decent length of time and even taking money from them. Its entirely possible that he notices something isn't quite right.

Just to be clear, you're saying that a 1st-level Wizard could cast Disguise Self and walk into any Inn, and there is an absolutely zero percent chance that the innkeeper sees through it?

tyckspoon
2009-07-02, 11:46 AM
Just to be clear, you're saying that a 1st-level Wizard could cast Disguise Self and walk into any Inn, and there is an absolutely zero percent chance that the innkeeper sees through it?

I'm saying there is no reason the illusion should be tested in the normal course of conducting standard inn business, yes. The innkeeper has several options to determine that there is something odd about the Wizard (Sense Motive to determine that he's not really acting like the thing he's disguised as, Spot against a DC 20 Disguise [assumed take 10 +10 bonus for the spell) as usual to find a flaw in the disguise) but even if he makes one of those checks I still find no reason he should save against the visual effect the wizard happens to be wearing. If he makes his Spot check, he would just think the guy is in disguise- but that could just as well be an entirely mundane disguise as an illusion.

In short, I don't think simply looking at a visual illusion qualifies as interacting with it for purposes of provoking a save. There are some things that might happen in a business transaction that would call for a save, but a person who cares about keeping his image intact need not do any of them (for example, instead of handing money directly to the innkeeper, which might let the innkeeper notice that where the 'hand' seems to be isn't quite the same as where he actually touched it, the wizard just puts his coin down on the bar and lets the innkeeper collect it himself.)

Lapak
2009-07-02, 11:47 AM
Because he's interacting with the person; talking for a decent length of time and even taking money from them. Its entirely possible that he notices something isn't quite right.

Just to be clear, you're saying that a 1st-level Wizard could cast Disguise Self and walk into any Inn, and there is an absolutely zero percent chance that the innkeeper sees through it?I agree with SensFan here; the general rule that illusions follow implies that they're not perfect. That if you double-check, the bricks of the illusionary wall don't line up with the bricks of the real wall, or that there's a slight blurriness to an Alter Self-ed shape so that the person who looks closely can make out your actual brown hair underneath the red hair it has given you. Or that it has details off; maybe every brick in the stone wall is exactly identical or the skin of your Altered Self is perfectly smooth wherever you haven't specified otherwise, because the spell doesn't cover details you don't focus on.

So someone casually passing in the street, who doesn't really LOOK at you, has no chance of noticing - but someone you're talking to does. Someone running down a dungeon hallway has no chance of noticing the odd patch of wall - but someone searching that hallway does. It's not a matter of what you expect; you expect walls in dungeons and customers in inns, of course. It's a matter of how much attention you are paying.

Fitz10019
2009-07-02, 12:01 PM
the bricks of the illusionary wall don't line up with the bricks of the real wall

You never saw an imperfect wall? Isn't poor craftmanship more likely than an illusion?

Lapak
2009-07-02, 12:06 PM
You never saw an imperfect wall? Isn't poor craftmanship more likely than an illusion?Which is why I gave several options, first of all, but also: yes, I have seen obviously-patched-in sections of wall before. It drew my attention, because it looked weird. Which is exactly what we're talking about: I interacted with something, it looked odd, I gave it a closer look. If I HAD been looking at an illusion, that right there is my opportunity for a disbelief attempt or save vs. spell.

SensFan
2009-07-02, 12:14 PM
I agree with SensFan here; the general rule that illusions follow implies that they're not perfect. That if you double-check, the bricks of the illusionary wall don't line up with the bricks of the real wall, or that there's a slight blurriness to an Alter Self-ed shape so that the person who looks closely can make out your actual brown hair underneath the red hair it has given you. Or that it has details off; maybe every brick in the stone wall is exactly identical or the skin of your Altered Self is perfectly smooth wherever you haven't specified otherwise, because the spell doesn't cover details you don't focus on.

So someone casually passing in the street, who doesn't really LOOK at you, has no chance of noticing - but someone you're talking to does. Someone running down a dungeon hallway has no chance of noticing the odd patch of wall - but someone searching that hallway does. It's not a matter of what you expect; you expect walls in dungeons and customers in inns, of course. It's a matter of how much attention you are paying.
By your logic, if the person decided not to buy something, a Mirror Image could shop at a store for as long as the caster wanted it to, and it would be impossible to tell it from a real person, unless someone walked into it.

I find that ridiculous.

tyckspoon
2009-07-02, 12:20 PM
There's apparently another difference here; I think of illusion spells as being significantly more effective in appearance than Lapak does. A basic Disguise Self generates a DC 20 Spot check to recognize it as a flawed disguise, which is supposed to be pretty difficult for low level characters to make (and notably is almost certainly higher than the actual save DC of the spell.) That says, to me, that it's actually a pretty good fake. Touch and scent will wreck it, so if you care about your disguise you take measures to prevent people from touching you, but it should hold up fine to casual visual inspection and conversation (if somebody is giving you a detailed visual inspection, they're probably getting far enough into your personal space to catch some of the other cues as well.)

Similarly, a Silent Image'd wall looks.. like a wall. If anything, it'll match its surroundings a little too well, like you'd copy-pasted the section of wall next to it exactly. It'll probably trip DwarfSense as 'unusual stonework', but for most people they would have to get right up to it and discover that there is still air/sounds/scent coming through the 'wall' before they got a save.


By your logic, if the person decided not to buy something, a Mirror Image could shop at a store for as long as the caster wanted it to, and it would be impossible to tell it from a real person, unless someone walked into it.

I find that ridiculous.

Mirror Image has several restrictions that make it almost impossible to do with that particular spell, but in general, yes. If the person casting it is a very good actor/director they could make a Silent Image (unlikely, because sound is not included in that spell) or a Major Image browse a store for a while and then leave with nobody catching on. Again, if somebody wants to be suspicious about that, they can use Sense Motive/Spot/Listen to identify flaws in the image, and if they discover one they can respond to that however they like, including with a Will save.

Lapak
2009-07-02, 12:27 PM
By your logic, if the person decided not to buy something, a Mirror Image could shop at a store for as long as the caster wanted it to, and it would be impossible to tell it from a real person, unless someone walked into it.

I find that ridiculous.I think you misunderstood my post, because I was agreeing with you. A Mirror Image can't do anything independently, but any other illusion would cause a check as soon as someone had reason to pay attention to it. Just wandering through an empty marketplace? Probably no check. Stopping at a merchant's stall and examining his wares? Well, the merchant is going to be paying attention at that point, either waiting to see if this is a thief or looking to make a sale, so he'll get a chance to see that something is off.

So yeah, I don't think you read my post right. But in case you did, and you still have a problem: yes. If an illusion somehow managed to wander through a crowded store without drawing attention, showing no interest in the merchandise, not coming close enough to any other person to cause them to react, then no one would get a check to notice. It doesn't take bumping them to interact, though. A person who wanted to look at the necklace which the illusion (or illusion-disguised-mage) is currently examining, but must wait until they get out of the way, is interacting with it. And a guard who is keeping an eye out for shoplifters is likely to be giving everyone in the area a closer look now and again.

But random passers-by in the street, who don't come within arm's reach of you? They have no reason to actually LOOK at the illusion or notice that something isn't right. Even someone who just nods politely and gets out of the way in that unconscious way we all do in crowded areas doesn't have any reason to look.

EDIT: To address the point just made, the differences are subtle. The guard and the other shopper might get a check, but as you point out they're not likely to make it. If it was perfect, though, there wouldn't be a check at all.

Cedrass
2009-07-02, 12:33 PM
Actually, I think Lapak has it right. With so many people in a market anyone not directly talking or exchanging money/goods with you won't get a save. When in a mall, do you study everyone you see? No you just don't care enough for that.

Also, someone mentioned that normal business with the inn keeper wouldn't allow a save and I'm not sure I agree, since they'll be touching each other, when the PC pays and when the inn keeper gives him the key, so now he is, without a doubt, interacting with the illusion, hence he gets a save. Right?

Riffington
2009-07-02, 12:43 PM
A basic Disguise Self generates a DC 20 Spot check to recognize it as a flawed disguise, which is supposed to be pretty difficult for low level characters to make (and notably is almost certainly higher than the actual save DC of the spell.)
Disguise Self does not offer a save at all. It's different from other illusions, and doesn't make a great analogy. An illusory wall (detectable only if you stop to take a look at the plant growing in the crack) is just a very different thing than a real wall illusorily painted white (detectable only if you remember that the wall in question used to be eggshell.)

tyckspoon
2009-07-02, 12:44 PM
Also, someone mentioned that normal business with the inn keeper wouldn't allow a save and I'm not sure I agree, since they'll be touching each other, when the PC pays and when the inn keeper gives him the key, so now he is, without a doubt, interacting with the illusion, hence he gets a save. Right?

Sure. I also mentioned a couple times that if it's really important to you to keep your image intact you can take fairly simple measures to avoid contacts like that (the guy you're doing business with might think you're weird, but he won't be breaking your illusion.) Like so many illusion-related things it comes down to the DM; many would probably give the innkeeper a save on the grounds that you didn't specifically try to avoid causing one, while others would generally assume that if you have a disguise on you're trying to maintain it and not call for a save without more particular reasons to make one.

woodenbandman
2009-07-02, 01:17 PM
What if Illusion magic was tied to the Craft(Painting) skill? And then the DC of the spot check to beat it was the DC of the Craft(Painting) check, plus (probably) a bonus for the situation (a tree in a forest vs a tree in a volcano). Also, how does light interact with illusions? Do illusions cast a shadow? Do shadows fall on illusions?

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-02, 01:27 PM
I've written about this issue in the past. My analysis:

"I disbelieve!"

Traditionally, you could get a chance to see through an illusion by declaring that you disbelieve something, which creates a bit of a problem (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-6.GIF). Well, in 3E, you don't have to give a detailed description of how you're looking at everything; you get to make Stop checks automatically. And you don't have to declare disbelief to see through an illusion; you get a free Will save if you interact with it or closely examine it.

Wait a minute. Just what the hell is "interaction" in this context?

Obviously, just noticing the illusion isn't enough. Were that the case, you'd just get a save: since making you perceive unreal sensations is what an illusion does, you'd have a chance to negate an illusion whenever it effected you. On the other hand, proof that something is an illusion is supposed to let you disbelieve it automatically, so obviously Will (Disbelief) isn't for when you swing your sword through an illusory monster.

So when do you get a save for "interacting" with something? It doesn't say. It's a vague non-standard.

I have a better idea: Illusion spells create false sensations independent of anyone's belief of them. Creatures can disbelieve an illusion, believe in an illusion, be suspicious and uncertain about an illusion, or even mistakenly think that a real thing is an illusion, based on the evidence available to them. None of this is the direct result of the spell, nor has any impact on its functioning: You don't "successfully disbelieve" and turn the illusion translucent, but neither do you unsuccessfully disbelieve and lose any suspicions you might have

If you want to give characters a chance to tell that an illusion doesn't quite look or sound right, let them make checks opposed by a check by the caster (Spot vs. Disguise, Listen vs. Disguise, or Forgery vs. Forgery). The caster gets a +10 bonus on this check.