Illusion limits and merits

[TheStillWind]

I'm thinking of playing an illusionist. What do you think of illusionists and the illusion spells? Do you enjoy playing illusionists?

What are the limits of the figment spells? What should I expect to be able to accomplish. If I make the illusion of an ally can it provide flanking bonuses. Can I create the illusion of mist to block out sight (like obscuring mist)? Can I create the illusion of darkness as per the darkness spell? Assuming they are not disbelieved would this work?

What other illusion tricks have you seen or done?

Any build ideas for making my illusions harder to believe? Maintaining them without concentration? Anything very useful for empowering illusions?

[cfalcon]

What are the limits of the figment spells? What should I expect to be able to accomplish.

You *might* find this helpful:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a

The current ruling on them *seems* to be that you basically create an IMAGE, something that appears to reflect light normally. You can't *create* light with it.


If I make the illusion of an ally can it provide flanking bonuses.

I believe the official answer is no. As DM, I would allow it but point out that it would count as interacting (in other words, they get a save)- and of course, if you as the illusionist allow your illusion to be touched, they don't even need a save to disbelieve. But I'm pretty sure that the rules would say no one gets the flanking bonus, as silly as that seems?


Can I create the illusion of mist to block out sight (like obscuring mist)? Can I create the illusion of darkness as per the darkness spell? Assuming they are not disbelieved would this work?

My understanding (which could be incorrect- the interpretation on the wotc website a few years ago was contrary to what we had seen before) was that they wanted you to just create images of *things*, like ogres, or swords, and to not do anything cool like that. But obviously an illusory wall has to block light right? At least, unless you interact with it and succeed in disbelieving by making your save.

I *think* by RAW that an obscuring mist illusion that you let someone TOUCH gets seen through, but if they never touch it, it would work- though they would likely get a save. When you say Darkness do you mean the 3.5 version (which would probably be hard to describe and duplicate), or the 3.0 and previous one that makes a sphere of inky blackness?

In any case, if you see through an illusion, you can perceive it as a smoky translucent image. You can't make an illusion of light.

Sorry I can't be more helpful. I really think that, based on what WotC has said, that they think illusions are of objects only, and not things like smoky hazes, one way mirrors that surround your enemies and resize to avoid contact, balls of darkness, or big magnifying glasses betwixt the sun and your enemy. Your best bet is to ask your DM how he runs them, and what are the limits- unless you are DMing, in which case, I could tell you in PM how I run them if you want.

If you touch the illusion, you don't need to make a save, you disbelieve automatically.

If you make your save, you disbelieve, but you don't get a save unless you interact with it.

[warrl]

Don't forget terrain illusions.

They basically come in two categories:

(1) Keep the enemy from going where you don't want him to go. If your party is standing next to difficult terrain, the enemy is unlikely to attack you from that flank. Your range attackers possibly can stand behind the difficult terrain.

(2) Get the enemy to go into bad places. There's (really) a swampy area, or a large deep hole, or even a chasm, between the enemy and you. But there's this convenient clear path, or bridge, or the like... or so it seems...

[AngelOmnipotent]

If you touch the illusion, you don't need to make a save, you disbelieve automatically.

If you make your save, you disbelieve, but you don't get a save unless you interact with it.

Seems to contradict each other though? If you're interacting with it you're pretty much going to be touching it, and if you touch it you don't make a save.

It's a case of what "interacting" is defined as.

[Korivan]

There are Illusion spells out there I believe in the Spell Compendium that specifically makes illusions for flanking. With the shadow conjuration spells, the PrC's classes that deal with illusions and shadow magic, you can make a really powerfull class. The biggest limitation I can see comes from a freind of mine that played a 2nd edition illusionist alot. After a while, the dm brings in creatures that arn't fool by illusions. Or brings us up against casters with True Seeing. Eventually, he meshed conjuration well with his illusions, sometimes bringing in actuall walls and creatures. It ended up becoming a contest between the Dm and Pc in a battle of whats what.

Still, the general rule-of-thumb is...the bigger your imagination, the better your illusions.

[cfalcon]

Interacting is not touching. If you do something that doesn't make sense (put your hand through an illusory door), you automatically disbelieve.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a

This has some pretty good guidelines for interaction, study, and the automatic success. For instance, if you state you attack an illusion of an ogre, I as the illusionist describe the ogre as evading the blow- you don't automatically disbelieve, but you for sure get a save (I think you might have to pass an AC 10 attack roll, but I'm not even sure about that- I could be forgetting).

[warrl]

Seems to contradict each other though? If you're interacting with it you're pretty much going to be touching it, and if you touch it you don't make a save.

It's a case of what "interacting" is defined as.

You shoot an arrow at a rock wall infested with goblins, and you don't hit one of the goblins. Do you notice that the arrow apparently went through the rock?

Amid the general noise of clanging weapons, do you realize that the third fighter's weapons don't clang? And that he DIDN'T dodge well enough to evade your blow, but your sword actually went through him?

(I'd interpret "touch" as equivalent to a touch attack or critical hit in melee. Something where your character KNOWS, beyond any doubt, he hit. Whereas "interact" can, as the examples I give suggest, be much more loose.)

[TheStillWind]

That was interesting and helpful. When I said darkness I was referring to the globe of inky blackness. Thanks



You shoot an arrow at a rock wall infested with goblins, and you don't hit one of the goblins. Do you notice that the arrow apparently went through the rock?

Amid the general noise of clanging weapons, do you realize that the third fighter's weapons don't clang? And that he DIDN'T dodge well enough to evade your blow, but your sword actually went through him?

(I'd interpret "touch" as equivalent to a touch attack or critical hit in melee. Something where your character KNOWS, beyond any doubt, he hit. Whereas "interact" can, as the examples I give suggest, be much more loose.)


I like this interpretation.

[PumpkinJack]

There are Illusion spells out there I believe in the Spell Compendium that specifically makes illusions for flanking. With the shadow conjuration spells, the PrC's classes that deal with illusions and shadow magic, you can make a really powerfull class. The biggest limitation I can see comes from a freind of mine that played a 2nd edition illusionist alot. After a while, the dm brings in creatures that arn't fool by illusions. Or brings us up against casters with True Seeing. Eventually, he meshed conjuration well with his illusions, sometimes bringing in actuall walls and creatures. It ended up becoming a contest between the Dm and Pc in a battle of whats what.

Still, the general rule-of-thumb is...the bigger your imagination, the better your illusions.

I think one of the problems with illusions is that their effectiveness is largely dependent upon your DM and his interpretation of how NPCs will react or not react. A fellow player I know had an illusionist character where almost none of his illusions had any useful effect on the situation at hand. He'd Ghost Sound some allies for us so our party would seem more impressive but the DM didn't care. He'd create an illusion of some cool monster and our enemies would ignore it. NPCs were almost never fooled or were fooled in such a way that was inconsequential (i.e. "these kobolds are defending their home so they don't care if there are three invaders or ten"). I think this particular DM wasn't interested in letting the player create experiences to manipulate the direction of the game.

If a DM gets involved in the illusions, having NPCs go along with disguises or run away when you appear to summon a dragon before them or ignore the phantom wall covering up the party's hiding place, then playing an illusionist could be a lot of fun. There's a lot of leeway in what can be considered "interacting" with an illusion so a helpful DM can allow you to get away with no saves if you plan well enough while a tough DM will always give the NPCs a save and usually have them touch the illusion to remove it. Without the DM buy-in, I don't think it would work. At least that's my experience.

I think there's a feat, Extraordinary Concentration (Complete Adventurer?), that allows you to maintain some concentration spells while doing other stuff. The Master Specialist prestige class from Complete Mage has some great special abilities like casting illusions without verbal or somatic components. Nightmare Spinner has some cool illusion stuff too, although fear based: you start off with an extra illusion spell slot at every level, and you can eventually kill people with fear (WILL save). Beguiler and bard are also good ways of getting illusion spells but also getting some good skills you can supplement them with (like bluff and disguise). Unfortunately, these skills seem indispensible to any illusion work that's not combat based. Also, the bard can get a feat to cast spells while performing which allows you to get away with hiding your illusions during a speech or while playing a song, which is pretty awesome.

Definitely get the Spell Focus feats and something to boost your INT since your spell DC is really all you're about. Without a convincing illusion, you don't have anything.

In terms of uses for illusions, I always thought it would be fun to surround the party with trenches or holes (maybe with Move Earth?) and then cover them up with Hallucinatory Terrain. It would be like a mine field for any attackers, though I'm not sure if all NPCs can see through the illusion once one of them falls into a hole. Maybe they just all get a save then.

Illusions of darkness or mist sound like great ideas for hiding the party or obscuring NPC vision. I imagine they'll be a DM discretion thing though so you probably want to talk about them with your DM first just to make sure he doesn't nix your main battle strategy right when you're planning on using it.

[Paul H]

Hi

My favourite Illusionist (and one of my favourite classes) is Beguiler. All those Illusion & Enchantment spells, with a smattering of others.

Beguilers also get a few extra bonuses - armour use, D6 HP, bonuses to DC's etc.

Then go Nightmare Spinner for the extra cheese.

Cheers
Paul H

[AslanCross]

Beguilers have a very impressive repertoire that makes them potentially better illusionists than Wizards, save cheese. They get Still and Silent Spell as bonus feats, so they can technically cast some spells without doing anything at all.

They also know all of the spells they can cast, so you need not limit yourself to certain spells.

Keep in mind the different types of Illusions:

[Glamer]: Change the way something looks. Disguise Self and Invisibility are glamers. The illusion is entirely optical (light bending trick) and as such does not call for a will save. However, some glamers can be defeated by mundane means (Disguise Self can be defeated by a high enough Spot check; The same is true for Invisibility).

[Figment]: Create false sensations. The Image series of spells is the best example. Due to the complex interplay of senses, it is possible to tell something is not real by interacting with it (Will save disbelief if interacted with) Now it's up to the DM to determine what interaction is, so you could discuss this with him/her.

[Phantasm]: This is an entirely mental attack. Only the victim and the caster can see the effect, and in essence, if the victim fails his save, he believes the phantasm to be real and damaging. Phantasms are the most directly offensive spells, but due to their dual saves they tend to be unreliable. Examples are Phantasmal Assailants and Phantasmal Killer.

[Shadow]: Using shadowstuff from the Plane of Shadow, you create a partially real effect. The most famous examples of this descriptor are the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation line. They have the most utility since you can sculpt them and copy spells that you don't actually know. These are very useful if you pick effects that don't require saves, but a bit less useful when you try to copy fireballs, as the spell calls both for disbelief (reducing the damage dealt greatly) and the copied spell's original save.

It takes a lot of planning and innovation to play an effective illusionist, but IMO it's potentially the most fun type of arcane caster to play.

[Paul H]

Hi

Don't forget Legions of Sentinels - a Beguiler Illusion spell that creates a mob of fighters, granting flanking for the party.

Then there's Advanced learning, where Beguilers can add Enchantment or Illusion spells to their list of spells known.

I mentioned Nightmare Spinner not only for their specal abilities, but the extra slots for Illusion spells. (And they're already an Int based spont caster)!

Cheers
Paul H

[Johel]

Interacting is not touching. If you do something that doesn't make sense (put your hand through an illusory door), you automatically disbelieve.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a

This has some pretty good guidelines for interaction, study, and the automatic success. For instance, if you state you attack an illusion of an ogre, I as the illusionist describe the ogre as evading the blow- you don't automatically disbelieve, but you for sure get a save (I think you might have to pass an AC 10 attack roll, but I'm not even sure about that- I could be forgetting).

What if it's the illusion of a ghost ? It can't be touch as it's etheral and even common folks know stories of ghosts getting through walls so... You might get that flanking bonus with this.

[Paul H]

Hi

Grey Elf Beguiler 3, Int 20. SF Illusion, GSF Illusion. Illusion spells DC18 (19 if target flat-footed).

(My Beguiler went SF Enchanter/Unsettling Enchantment).

Cheers
Paul H

[Korivan]

[QUOTE=PumpkinJack;6606239]I think one of the problems with illusions is that their effectiveness is largely dependent upon your DM and his interpretation of how NPCs will react or not react. A fellow player I know had an illusionist character where almost none of his illusions had any useful effect on the situation at hand. He'd Ghost Sound some allies for us so our party would seem more impressive but the DM didn't care. He'd create an illusion of some cool monster and our enemies would ignore it. NPCs were almost never fooled or were fooled in such a way that was inconsequential (i.e. "these kobolds are defending their home so they don't care if there are three invaders or ten"). I think this particular DM wasn't interested in letting the player create experiences to manipulate the direction of the game.QUOTE]

This is a prime example of dms purpasfully or by accident, nix an illusionist. In this case, they suck. But this can go the oppisite way too. If the dm is too leniet and ignores limitations, illusionist can rule the game without much effort. This is an extreme example but...A player used minor or major image (2nd edition) to create a hundred arrows, the creature failed his save to "disbelive" and took all the damage. The rules for these in both editions are about the same so this isnt a case in open interpretation but rather poor dming....

[Paul H]

Hi

Problem with pure Illusionist is the same as any over-specialisation. In this case they (mostly) don't work against Undead or Constructs.
(Legion of Sentinels does, as does Shadow Evocation, Shadow Conjuration, etc).

That's why I like Beguilers - if you can't harm them, then buff the party. Mage Armour, Invis, Haste etc.

Cheers
Paul H

[Tar Palantir]

What if it's the illusion of a ghost ? It can't be touch as it's etheral and even common folks know stories of ghosts getting through walls so... You might get that flanking bonus with this.

It still doesn't provide flanking, the same as it can't attack. However, touching it would only be interacting, not auto-disbelieve, as your hand going through it is consistent with how a real ghost would behave (that's why I love illusions of incorporeal creatures, especially immediately preceding attack by actual incorporeal creatures).

[Paul H]

Hi

The Ghost can't but Legion of Sentinels can attack/provide flanking. (Says so in spell description).

27 attacks of opportunity - something's got to hit!

Cheers
Paul H

[jagadaishio]

When push comes to shove, the various Image spells are some of the most powerful spells in the game. As long as you're creative, the possibilities are endless. Make a point of ramping the save DCs as high as you can, though. They're only awesome until someone manages to disbelieve the spell.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Problem with pure Illusionist is the same as any over-specialisation. In this case they (mostly) don't work against Undead or Constructs.
(Legion of Sentinels does, as does Shadow Evocation, Shadow Conjuration, etc).Illusions are in no way mind-affecting. Unintelligent Undead and constructs are actually weaker against illusions, as it's harder for them to notice something isn't right.