Illusion handbook?

[rubycona]

Hey, quick question.

Could someone toss me a link on how to use illusion magics effectively and/or what circumstances = you think it's real, no save | you get a save | you know it's fake, no save?

I Do make use of my illusion magics, and I do like them, but I'm positive I'm not using them anywhere near potential. I like the idea of the Beguiler class, but there's no way I'd make an effective character out of it at the moment.

I'm thinking in our games, we allow for will saves too readily for illusions, but I'm not sure. Like, I think, if I'm hiding in a corner, trying to spy on some NPCs, and I'm making it look like there's, I dunno, a potted plant instead of me in that particular location, and the NPCs don't know there's not supposed to be a potted plant, they shouldn't all get will saves. 'Cause if there's 20 of them, say, my odds of success suck, if they all get saves, even if my DC is nice.

Thanks for your help :)

Edit: I've got ideas on the what circumstances = what results thing, but I think that those ideas may be skewed. Like, obviously, if an NPC decides to pick up said potted plant, there's no save necessary.

[HunterOfJello]

Here's a link dump of Illusion stuff:

The Beguiler Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872218/-_The_New_Beguiler_Handbook_-_2008) is likely relevant.

Whenever a wizard is involved, Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.msg8043#msg8043) is generally involved.

Also, Treantmonk's Guide to Wizard Spells: God's Tools - Part 6: Illusion (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.msg8096#msg8096) goes indepth on illusion spells and should be particularly useful.

Wizards of the Coast did a web series on Illusion spells called All About Illusions. Here are parts One (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a), Two (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a), Three (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a) and Four (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a).

~

The Shadowcraft Mage prestige class probably requires a mention when Illusion spells are involved. The class is from Races of Stone and significantly strengthens all gnome Illusionists by a great deal. They gain free Silent Spell and Extend Spell to all of their Illusions along with several other very powerful abilities.

~

Actually answering your question now, Illusions are often given a save against when they are interacted with. A illusory person you try to talk to might seem strange and/or fake, giving you a save against them. However, a person standing on top of a tall tower whether illusion or not will always seem real to the casual observer.

For RAW purposes, a concrete definition of "interacted with" could probably be hotly debated.

[fractal_uk]

I believe one of the "rules of thumb" to dealing with interacting with illusions is that it should should generally take some sort of an action in order for you to be eligable to make a save.

If you create a potted plant where you are and they have no reason to suspect one should be there, they definitely don't get a save. If they are suspicious because they think there shouldn't be a plant there and they start trying to touch it/move it/etc then they definitely get a save - probably with a decent bonus because there is nothing to touch.

If they are suspicous and study the plant carefully visually to make out if there is anything unusual about it, taking an action to do so, they probably also deserve a save - only without the bonus.

Some illusions provide sounds, smells and the like as well. In these cases passively detecting them shouldn't be enough to provoke a save but if they start taking actions to listen carefully (or smell carefully, if such a thing is possible!) for inconsitencies, they should get one.

[rubycona]

For RAW purposes, a concrete definition of "interacted with" could probably be hotly debated.

This is the issue, right here :) Thanks for the links, they should cover me, and no doubt, they clarify a great deal on the definition of "interacted with."

Thanks again for your help, everyone :)