Epic spot checks

[Hirax]

So in tinkering with my eagled eyed character, I started rereading the epic spot rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#spot), and I started pondering this entry:

"Defeat Illusion
The character can automatically detect any illusion with a visual component for what it truly is. No Will save is required, and the character doesn’t have to interact with the illusion (but he or she must be able to see it)."

What does that mean? Obviously it means things such as silent image are foiled, but what about shadow conjurations, evocations, or phantasmal killers? Screens (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/screen.htm)? Anything at all that has 'will disbelief' somewhere? And that isn't strictly auditory, of course.

Mostly, though, I'm curious about the fact that if an illusion doesn't need to be interacted with, does that mean you're entitled to a spot check automatically when an illusion enters your sight?

[Shadowleaf]

The wording is fairly straightforward. If an illusion spell with a visual component enters your field of view, you are entitled a Spot check to see if you see it for what it really is.

Phantasmal Killer seems a little on the edge, but since it says "You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal." I'd say you get the Spot check.

[CTrees]

Invisibility gets interesting. The illusion generated is that there isn't something there, so you can see the absence, where a creature should be standing...

No, no I would not allow this, as a DM. However I would argue it as a player, solely for my amusement and the amusement of two other people in my group, who would appreciate the argument for it's silliness.

[legomaster00156]

Invisibility gets interesting. The illusion generated is that there isn't something there, so you can see the absence, where a creature should be standing...

No, no I would not allow this, as a DM. However I would argue it as a player, solely for my amusement and the amusement of two other people in my group, who would appreciate the argument for it's silliness.
By the time you're Epic level, you should be perceptive enough to notice something's missing, and paranoid enough to be looking for it.

[Shadowleaf]

By the time you're Epic level, you should be perceptive enough to notice something's missing, and paranoid enough to be looking for it.Or, just, you know, have some sort of permanent See Invisibility effect.

[legomaster00156]

Or, just, you know, have some sort of permanent See Invisibility effect.

Exactly. If you can do that many levels earlier, there's no need to ban simply seeing invisible things at level 21+, when any Wizard worth his salt can dispel the invisibilty of everything in the nation.

[Hirax]

Yeah, see invisibility is nice because it doesn't have a range limitation. True seeing has its annoying 120' range. Though while on the subject, is there a spell similar to snowsight, that allows you to see just fine in other weather conditions, such as fog, rainstorms, etc?

[Heliomance]

Invisibility gets interesting. The illusion generated is that there isn't something there, so you can see the absence, where a creature should be standing...

No, no I would not allow this, as a DM. However I would argue it as a player, solely for my amusement and the amusement of two other people in my group, who would appreciate the argument for it's silliness.

High enough spot check can see invisible creatures anyway. It's only a DC20 spot check to notice the presence of an invisible creature, and being invisible simply adds 20 to your hide check (if moving, 40 if not).

[Curmudgeon]

Exactly. If you can do that many levels earlier, there's no need to ban simply seeing invisible things at level 21+, when any Wizard worth his salt can dispel the invisibilty of everything in the nation.
Unlike Epic feats, there's no level requirement to make Epic skill checks. It's purely the high DCs that make them Epic. With enough custom non-Epic magical boosts you could make some Epic checks in the teen levels.