Illusions and spellcraft checks to identify

[Venger]

Okay. Let's say that there are two casters: Morphy and Mialee.

Mialee casts a silent image of a beholder at Morphy. Morphy has invested ranks in spellcraft, so he chooses to identify it, the check being only a DC 16. He successfully identifies it is a silent image.

So... now it doesn't really matter whether he makes his will save against the silent image or not, does it? He already knows what spell has just been cast, so he knows Mialee's beholder is not real. He doesn't even need to interact with it, he can just ignore it entirely. The same token of logic applies to the other image spells and the like. (major, programmed, permanent, etc, assuming the check could be made)

does the spellcraft check not apply to illusion spells? if so, isn't that kind of another way of telling the players that whatever they're looking at is an illusion? if not, then what's the point of illusion?

[tyckspoon]

If you don't make the save against the spell, it's still visually (and any other senses the particular illusion spell may have) real to you. That means it provides cover to things behind it and blocks line of sight if large enough. This will usually have limited application, but it should be kept in mind- you can only *completely* ignore an illusion if you save against it, in which case it becomes nothing more than a translucent outline.

[Feytalist]

I agree that it would still appear as real, blocking line of sight and so on.

On the other hand, he knows it's an illusion. Theoretically, he should then automatically succeed his will save vs. illusion, or at the very least get a bonus on the save.

Illusions are weird.

[Thomasinx]

I agree that it would still appear as real, blocking line of sight and so on.

On the other hand, he knows it's an illusion. Theoretically, he should then automatically succeed his will save vs. illusion, or at the very least get a bonus on the save.

Illusions are weird.

Actually he doesn't know it's an illusion. It could be that the beholder is an ally to the original caster that teleported in at the same time as silent image was cast. Spellcraft only lets you know what the caster just cast.

However, that said, I would say that this gives a benefit to disbelieving the illusion, likely a +2 or +4 on the save (like if someone else disbelieves the illusion and conveys that fact to allies).

Think of it this way: Mialee casts quickened silent image, and at the same time discreetly uses a magic item that summons a creature. The silent image could just make the floor look a bit rockier, whereas the creature is real. A spellcraft check would let the caster know "oh! the spell was silent image." not "oh! the creature is fake."

[Varil]

A bonus to saves sounds about right to me. Edge cases aside, 99% of the time that Beholder really is just going to be the magical equivalent of a cardboard prop.

It's the 1% of the time where it's real that things get hilarious.

"I poke the illusionary beholder!"

"Okay, make a fort save..."

"You mean will?"

"Nah, his ray attack to turn you to stone connected."

:smallsmile::smallconfused::smalleek:

[supermonkeyjoe]

Knowing something consciously and accepting it unconsciously are two different things, ever been snorkelling? my mind knows I can breath through the tube, my senses say HOLY CRAP DUDE YOU!RE UNDERWATER DON'T BREATHE IN!

likewise Morphy knows on an intellectual level that the beholder is an illusion, if he fails his will save his eyes are still 100% convinced there's an actual beholder there in front of him, he won't run screaming but he still can't see what's behind the beholder

[Keneth]

This is RAW:

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.
If you succeed on a Spellcraft check and you know that the spell cast is an illusion then you automatically disbelieve it, no need for saving throws or interaction.

[Thomasinx]

This is RAW:

If you succeed on a Spellcraft check and you know that the spell cast is an illusion then you automatically disbelieve it, no need for saving throws or interaction.

What qualifies as proof? A spellcraft check is just circumstantial evidence. A spellcraft check shows that the caster cast a certain spell, not that the effect you see in front of you is the result of that spell. The two are separate. Proof is generally in the form of an ally walking through a wall that isn't really there, or walking up and touching a silent image.

I'd love to build an encounter around casting illusions at the same time as having allies use readied actions to teleport into combat. So much propensity to mess with people's heads... :D

[Keneth]

How is that circumstantial evidence? That's like saying that if you see someone shoot an arrow and it gets stuck in your chest, there's no proof that the person actually shot you. If someone casts a silent image and you see the result of that spell, then you automatically disbelieve the illusion. There's no ifs here.

[Gwendol]

There are tricks to disguise a casting of a spell to be something else, so a successful check isn't enough. A bonus to the will save is good, and if the suspicion is there the target of the spell can always chance interacting with the illusion which will surely prove it false.

[Esgath]

There are tricks to disguise a casting of a spell to be something else, so a successful check isn't enough. A bonus to the will save is good, and if the suspicion is there the target of the spell can always chance interacting with the illusion which will surely prove it false.
In which case the caster did cast an illusion, but disguised it as some other spell. Now you don't have the spellcraft check to know it's an illusion, therefore you don't automatically make the save.
However if you can make a spellcraft check, and identify the spell being cast as an illusion spell, then you don't have to make a save.
Never cast illusions in line of sight to another caster or any other character with high enough spellcraft.

[Thomasinx]

In which case the caster did cast an illusion, but disguised it as some other spell. Now you don't have the spellcraft check to know it's an illusion, therefore you don't automatically make the save.
However if you can make a spellcraft check, and identify the spell being cast as an illusion spell, then you don't have to make a save.
Never cast illusions in line of sight to another caster or any other character with high enough spellcraft.

What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".

Even if it's probably an illusion, there's no certainty.

[CGforever!]

What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".

Even if it's probably an illusion, there's no certainty.

I agree. That's not proof, though I would still give Morphy a bonus to his save.

[prufock]

What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".

Even if it's probably an illusion, there's no certainty.

In that example, his assumption is wrong. He STILL doesn't have to make a save to disbelieve the ally, because the ally is real. If he assumes the ally is an illusion, there are consequences of that. I'm not sure what your objection is.

You can use criteria loose enough that there's no such thing as "proof" that the image is an illusion. There's always some obscure way to rationalize it. I think it this case, correlation is strong enough "proof" to convince the observer that the image isn't real.

[Quietus]

In this case I'd give the immediate save at +4, as though it was "pointed out", but the save would effectively be to see through the illusion, rather than to disbelieve it. Morphy knows it's an illusion - he just saw it cast, he knows what that spell was - so he's probably entirely certain that it's a Silent Image or whatever. It's just that he wasn't able to pass the will save to see through it. This can have hilarious consequences when the contrived unnecessarily complicated situations do come up, but 99.9% of the time, this is exactly what it says on the tin.

[Bahamut Omega]

I think the trickiest things with illusions is separating what we as players see and understand from what our characters see and understand.

Say we have our character fire an arrow at a wall and it passes through it. As players, we want to automatically say, it's an illusion and my character automatically disbelieves. The character, however, failed the will save. They aren't exactly sure why their arrow passed through the wall. They live in a world with bags that contain additional dimensions, walls that could be monsters, illusionary magic, teleportation circles, magic and metamagic, etc. As a player, an illusion seems to be the most obvious answer, and maybe it is. But the character's not sure, again because he failed the will save. The character's running through the possibility that the wall could actually be a mutated gelatinous cube, or maybe the arrow ricocheted off it and he just blinked at the wrong moment, or the angle he's at is just so that he thinks maybe the arrow's in the wall, but it's hard to see. In short, the character's failed will save means he's convinced himself that it could be something other than an illusion.

I had a character who royally screwed up an appraise check. He was certain this piece of copper trash was an ancient, ornate depiction from an extinct culture and worth well over 5,000 gp. The reality was it was a piece of copper trash that was worth about 150 gp. Regardless, my character wouldn't relent, and refused to sell this thing for less than 5,000 gp, thus he carried it around everywhere. Next time he gains a rank in appraise, I'll try the check again and probably not roll a 1, then come to the conclusion that he misread something and fire into the sun, or sell it for what it's worth, whichever.

Returning to the original question, I concur with the assessment of the others and think the character would be entitled to make a save with a +2 bonus to be appropriate. It's less than the recommended +4 bonus from the RAW when an ally tells the character that it's definitely an illusion, and I think that's a fair middle ground.

[Bahamut Omega]

I think the trickiest things with illusions is separating what we as players see and understand from what our characters see and understand.

Say we have our character fire an arrow at a wall and it passes through it. As players, we want to automatically say, it's an illusion and my character automatically disbelieves. The character, however, failed the will save. They aren't exactly sure why their arrow passed through the wall. They live in a world with bags that contain additional dimensions, walls that could be monsters, illusionary magic, teleportation circles, magic and metamagic, etc. As a player, an illusion seems to be the most obvious answer, and maybe it is. But the character's not sure, again because he failed the will save. The character's running through the possibility that the wall could actually be a mutated gelatinous cube, or maybe the arrow ricocheted off it and he just blinked at the wrong moment, or the angle he's at is just so that he thinks maybe the arrow's in the wall, but it's hard to see. In short, the character's failed will save means he's convinced himself that it could be something other than an illusion.

I had a character who royally screwed up an appraise check. He was certain this piece of copper trash was an ancient, ornate depiction from an extinct culture and worth well over 5,000 gp. The reality was it was a piece of copper trash that was worth about 150 gp. Regardless, my character wouldn't relent, and refused to sell this thing for less than 5,000 gp, thus he carried it around everywhere. Next time he gains a rank in appraise, I'll try the check again and probably not roll a 1, then come to the conclusion that he misread something and fire into the sun, or sell it for what it's worth, whichever.

Returning to the original question, I concur with the assessment of the others and think the character would be entitled to make a save with a +2 bonus to be appropriate. It's less than the recommended +4 bonus from the RAW when an ally tells the character that it's definitely an illusion, and I think that's a fair middle ground.

[ericgrau]

Ya illusions cast in plain sight aren't too effective. I'd say he has a pretty good idea that whatever got made is fake but not absolute proof. So he gets the +4 to his save since it was basically pointed out to him that the illusion is fake. And he'll be highly suspicious: willing to walk up, touch it and get absolute proof.

I once read a story of a game where an illusionist fought a reoccurring villain who knew to expect his illusions. So before one fight he cast an illusion of ordinary ground over a lava pit. When the villain arrived he dismissed the illusion, which looks the same as casting an illusion. The villain thought the lava pit was an illusion and ordered his henchmen to charge.

[Esgath]

First of all, whoever wants to bicker over "proof". Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, there is "just" evidence. Seeing the caster cast something and determining via a spellcraft check, what spell it was should be enough. The spellcraft check has exactly two outcomes: failure aka "I don't know what spell that is" and success "It was silent image". There is no way to get more deterministic about that. If you won't qualify that as "proof" as the authors named it, then nothing will.


What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".

Even if it's probably an illusion, there's no certainty.


Readying an Action

You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
So RAW, first happens the teleport, then the illusion being cast. There are no exactly simultaneous actions.


EDIT: @Bahamut Omega skill checks don't automatically fail at a natural 1.

[Prince Zahn]

First of all, whoever wants to bicker over "proof". Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, there is "just" evidence. Seeing the caster cast something and determining via a spellcraft check, what spell it was should be enough. The spellcraft check has exactly two outcomes: failure aka "I don't know what spell that is" and success "It was silent image". There is no way to get more deterministic about that. If you won't qualify that as "proof" as the authors named it, then nothing will.

^This. Will Save aside for a moment - unless your character has a notably low wisdom score(say, maybe 7?) in general, he should have no problem deducting that if a beholder suddenly appears right after silent image is successfully cast(which, under these circumstances, both are a given), that the beholder must be the illusion, whether you are right wrong IIRC (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), you won't find out to you "interact with the illusion in some fashion" - because that's when you get the save you never required, thus solving the "I know he cast it so I don't believe what's before me, but it's still there 1 second after my check so it must be real" clause.

let me try to explain with RAW and interpretation thereof:

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.
[...] A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.
RAW by my logic: it says you don't need the saving throw,(not 'you automatically succeed on the saving throw'), now, when compared to the first sentence I understand that the aforementioned saving throw(whether you need to roll it or not) doesn't happen until you fulfill the criteria for the save, for example, it would go about like: spellcraft success->character believes it's fake->lay your palm on the illusion->save->isn't required->translucent outline. The fact that he knows it's fake should suffice, and even if that's not evident enough he can easily prove his 'theory' with interaction.

[Bahamut Omega]

EDIT: @Bahamut Omega skill checks don't automatically fail at a natural 1.

It does when you roll a 1, the DC was 25, and you have only a few ranks in it.

[nedz]

Suppose Mialee is a Gnome, specifically that Gnome (I'm thinking Shadow Crafting here). Then Mialee's Silent Image may be quite "Real". Assuming things which are real are illusions is very dangerous.

[navar100]

First of all, whoever wants to bicker over "proof". Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, there is "just" evidence. Seeing the caster cast something and determining via a spellcraft check, what spell it was should be enough. The spellcraft check has exactly two outcomes: failure aka "I don't know what spell that is" and success "It was silent image". There is no way to get more deterministic about that. If you won't qualify that as "proof" as the authors named it, then nothing will.


Some DMs reflexively refuse to allow players to auto-succeed on anything, despite here the player had to roll to succeed on a Spellcraft check in the first place.

[Keneth]

What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".

Even if it's probably an illusion, there's no certainty. There's complete certainty, because it's D&D mechanics, not real life. If you can see the spell being cast and know what is being cast, and you can see the results, then the save is automatic. Whether or not an ally teleported in is irrelevant — they teleport in, and after their action you finish casting the spell and the effects appear, allowing someone who made a successful check to see through your ruse. The only way this would work is if you created the image somewhere that is out of LoS, and there would likely be some indication on the caster's part (a wave of the hand, redirected attention, etc.) to show that you're placing it there. Even if it was small enough to place it inside (in the same space) as the creature that has just teleported there, as far as the characters are concerned, this happened before you finished casting. There's no way to create a simultaneous occurrence.

Do note that I'm not against ruling otherwise, if my players devised this plan, I would likely allow it, and we all know that Illusion spells need some extra love (not that any spellcasters need any love at all, but compared to other schools). As far as RAW are concerned, this falls through however.

[Canarr]

Would it be any different if the illusion were a SLA, not a spell that is cast?

[Heliomance]

There's complete certainty, because it's D&D mechanics, not real life. If you can see the spell being cast and know what is being cast, and you can see the results, then the save is automatic. Whether or not an ally teleported in is irrelevant — they teleport in, and after their action you finish casting the spell and the effects appear, allowing someone who made a successful check to see through your ruse. The only way this would work is if you created the image somewhere that is out of LoS, and there would likely be some indication on the caster's part (a wave of the hand, redirected attention, etc.) to show that you're placing it there.

Spellcraft doesn't get you that much detail. Spellcraft gets you "he cast Silent Image", not any details about what you made an image of, where you put it, or anything else.

[Keneth]

Would it be any different if the illusion were a SLA, not a spell that is cast?
Generally no, spell-like abilities work just like spells and as such can be identified by Spellcraft checks although this has been a matter of some dispute. Supernatural abilities would have been excellent however if you could get any that produce illusions. :)


Spellcraft doesn't get you that much detail. Spellcraft gets you "he cast Silent Image", not any details about what you made an image of, where you put it, or anything else.
You don't need a Spellcraft check to determine the results of the spell unless they are invisible. If anything, you would roll a Spot/Perception check if the caster decided to resort to such tricks.

[Heliomance]

Generally no, spell-like abilities work just like spells and as such can be identified by Spellcraft checks although this has been a matter of some dispute. Supernatural abilities would have been excellent however if you could get any that produce illusions. :)


You don't need a Spellcraft check to determine the results of the spell unless they are invisible. If anything, you would roll a Spot/Perception check if the caster decided to resort to such tricks.

Thus proving that spellcraft doesn't give you enough information to auto-disbelieve an illusion. If a wizard casts Fireball and there's an explosion of fire, it's a reasonable bet he caused it. If a wizard casts Silent Image and a fighter suddenly appears on the battlefield, it's a reasonable bet the wizard caused it and it's an illusion. But it might not in fact be an illusion, it might be that someone teleported in concurrently (and don't requote the bit about readied actions going off just before the action that triggered them - we're talking less than a second in timing here, there's no way you're keeping track of that in the heat of battle). Thus, the fact that you could see a wizard cast Silent Image, see something appear, and it not be an illusion means that seeing a wizard casting Silent Image does not mean you know that whatever appears is an illusion. You can strongly suspect it, yes, but you can't know.

[Esgath]

(and don't requote the bit about readied actions going off just before the action that triggered them - we're talking less than a second in timing here, there's no way you're keeping track of that in the heat of battle)

Read that as "and don't say anything otherwise, as it disproves my point". We are talking about D&D mechanics here, not about reallife simulations of medieval history. It is also unrealistic that you have 360 degree vision so you can keep perfectly track who moves where in the heat of combat, but the gamemechanics were exactly designed that way. The rules do state it clearly, everything else is a houserule. As navar100 said it, you made your save. It was just in the form of a spellcraft check.

[Bahamut Omega]

Separate your player's mind from your character's, Kenneth, and it works a lot better. Your character knows the other caster created an image, but isn't sure what was created.

For all they know, the illusionist might've cast a quickened, silent, stilled, Summon Monster using some obscure feat to reduce the casting to a standard action AND cast major image on top of it. The character, even on succeeding on a spellcraft check, only knows the spell was cast, they would still need to save to disbelieve.

As a player, you hope the illusionist isn't so powerful that they can throw that combo out there like it's nothing, but the character has no idea one way or the other. It's all about how your character perceives the world, not how the player thinks the world is perceived.

In our party, my illusionist throws up walls and illusions interchangeably. An ally druid throws out Summon Nature's Ally spells constantly. It can get very confusing to discern which spells are real, which are illusions, and the possibility that an illusion could be real is very likely when an enemy comes up against our party.

Another weird combo we've done once. We were being pursued, so after turning a corner, the cleric cast stone shape to create a wall behind us. Then I cast invisibility on the wall, which effectively makes it see through. THEN I cast Major Image behind that wall to show a different version of the hallway with the appearance of the party on the far end taunting. Passing the spellcraft check didn't exactly help the enemy. They figured out that there was something invisible in their way, but they weren't sure what. Getting rid of that left them with a wall to bash through. Then they had to figure out that what they were looking at on the other end of the hall wasn't what they thought it was. In the end, all spellcraft could tell them was that those spells were cast, but it was impossible to discern what was what without interacting with it.

This is a situation that one could reasonably encounter with an illusionist. Making enemies disoriented and confused to make them waste time and resources is what they do. I can't wait until I get Mirage Arcana.

[Deophaun]

What about my original example? Caster casts silent image for something mundane (like a pebble) at the same time an ally uses a readied action to teleport over. This has the exact same appearance. "Silent Image + someone appears".
This would require a Bluff check, which would have some severe negative modifiers to it as the viewer should have disbelieved the "illusion" with his successful Spellcraft check.

[Sutremaine]

Since talking is a free action, do the spellcaster's allies get the benefit of the save bonus once they're informed of the spellcaster's successful identification of the spell?

[Ranting Fool]

Since talking is a free action, do the spellcaster's allies get the benefit of the save bonus once they're informed of the spellcaster's successful identification of the spell?

You mean "Look out friends he's casting an Illusion!" if done when doing spellcraft I don't see why not.

[nedz]

Since talking is a free action, do the spellcaster's allies get the benefit of the save bonus once they're informed of the spellcaster's successful identification of the spell?

Only after the spellcaster's initiative, since talking is not an immediate action.

[Bahamut Omega]

I'm still not sure what's so wrong with the middle ground of a will save with a +2 bonus. Spellcraft doesn't explicitly state you get to ignore the effects of a spell simply because you identified it, it simply makes you aware that something of that nature is taking effect. As you cannot know with certainty what the illusion is, you should not automatically be allowed to disbelieve.

By the logic being used, a character could simply bypass the defenses granted by Mirror Image on the simple premise that they spellcrafted and thus disbelieve. The RAW for Silent Image and similar spells grant a will save to disbelieve when interacted with and only negates the need for the save when faced with proof.

An experienced spellcaster knows that a spellcraft check to identify an illusion is being cast as evidence of an illusion, but it's not proof. They would know that an enemy caster using illusions is likely trying to confuse them, but what the source of the confusion is is not necessarily obvious. After all, that's what illusionists do.

[Mari01]

I'm still not sure what's so wrong with the middle ground of a will save with a +2 bonus. Spellcraft doesn't explicitly state you get to ignore the effects of a spell simply because you identified it, it simply makes you aware that something of that nature is taking effect. As you cannot know with certainty what the illusion is, you should not automatically be allowed to disbelieve.

By the logic being used, a character could simply bypass the defenses granted by Mirror Image on the simple premise that they spellcrafted and thus disbelieve. The RAW for Silent Image and similar spells grant a will save to disbelieve when interacted with and only negates the need for the save when faced with proof.

An experienced spellcaster knows that a spellcraft check to identify an illusion is being cast as evidence of an illusion, but it's not proof. They would know that an enemy caster using illusions is likely trying to confuse them, but what the source of the confusion is is not necessarily obvious. After all, that's what illusionists do.

I can't think of anything constructive to add, but this argument here is what won me over to your side. All your character knows is that an illusion was cast. Something appearing/dissapearing would be a strong indicator that that's the trick, but there's always the case of double/triple/infint number tricks when facing an illusionist right? That's their whole schtick to me; making whats real and unreal change at a moment's notice.

[Jeff the Green]

Don't forget that there are ways to make one spell seem like another (the False Theurgy skill trick, for instance). Any person with enough experience to identify spells should know that, so just because they identified something as an illusion spell, they can't be certain that's what was actually cas. That's part of the reason I like the beguiler/archivist mystic theurge combo.

[Mari01]

I think my next arcane caster will do this. An Illusionist who dabbles in conjuration every now and then. This should be quite devious...

[Esgath]

For all they know, the illusionist might've cast a quickened, silent, stilled, Summon Monster using some obscure feat to reduce the casting to a standard action AND cast major image on top of it. The character, even on succeeding on a spellcraft check, only knows the spell was cast, they would still need to save to disbelieve.
In which case, you get 2 spellcraft checks and again one spell/effect happens after the other.



It's all about how your character perceives the world, not how the player thinks the world is perceived.
Exactly. Just because you think you can't determine 2 separate actions happening right after each other doesn't mean the character can't. What the character perceives is determined in the rules.



In our party, my illusionist throws up walls and illusions interchangeably. An ally druid throws out Summon Nature's Ally spells constantly. It can get very confusing to discern which spells are real, which are illusions, and the possibility that an illusion could be real is very likely when an enemy comes up against our party.
If you see what is cast, you can determine it via a spellcraft check. A character with spellcraft is aware, that summon nature's ally was cast or silent image.



Another weird combo we've done once. We were being pursued, so after turning a corner, the cleric cast stone shape to create a wall behind us. Then I cast invisibility on the wall, which effectively makes it see through. THEN I cast Major Image behind that wall to show a different version of the hallway with the appearance of the party on the far end taunting. Passing the spellcraft check didn't exactly help the enemy. They figured out that there was something invisible in their way, but they weren't sure what. Getting rid of that left them with a wall to bash through. Then they had to figure out that what they were looking at on the other end of the hall wasn't what they thought it was. In the end, all spellcraft could tell them was that those spells were cast, but it was impossible to discern what was what without interacting with it.
Ok, first action you are out of line of sight so nobody could get a spellcraft check. Nice.
Secondly, both wall of stone and invisibility don't allow a save to disbelieve, so it is dispensible for this discussion.
Thirdly, again major image was cast without line of sight to you, so they would have to interact with your illusion to disbelieve it.

If the enemy would have had line of sight to you casting major image (e.g. looking through the invisible stone wall) they could have made a spellcraft check and identify your spell being cast.

Also, be careful what a figment (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a) can do.



By the logic being used, a character could simply bypass the defenses granted by Mirror Image on the simple premise that they spellcrafted and thus disbelieve.

No, mirror image doesn't allow a save to disbelieve.



An experienced spellcaster knows that a spellcraft check to identify an illusion is being cast as evidence of an illusion, but it's not proof.
I covered that already.

[Spuddles]

Spellcraft doesn't get you that much detail. Spellcraft gets you "he cast Silent Image", not any details about what you made an image of, where you put it, or anything else.

DC: 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

[Oscredwin]

The examples used for "proof" that something is an illusion is the figment not behaving like it should, a solid object that has other objects passing through it. Being told that something is an illusion by your parties compulsively honest lawful good cleric who has true seeing up only offers you a save at +4. Passing a spellcraft check is weaker evidence than that. I would offer a save as if you had interacted with the illusion.

[Esgath]

The examples used for "proof" that something is an illusion is the figment not behaving like it should, a solid object that has other objects passing through it.
You just interacted with it, now you get a save.

Being told that something is an illusion by your parties compulsively honest lawful good cleric who has true seeing up only offers you a save at +4. Passing a spellcraft check is weaker evidence than that.
Why? Because I did it myself and didn't rely upon a third party?

[Bahamut Omega]

You just interacted with it, now you get a save.

You interacted with it, you didn't get proof that it's an illusion. Your character doesn't know he succeeded on a spellcraft check, the player knows that. Your character thinks he observed an illusion being cast, but the only way to be sure is to try and walk through it.

Illusionists deceive. A spellcaster trying to ignore that fact is going to die hilariously.

[Oscredwin]

This thread is making me want to put up some Hallucinatory Terrain to make a cliff face be 50 feet further out, have some illusory fortifications where the real cliff is, something that can be jumped over, and an illusion of my caster preforming some sort of dark ritual that needs to be stopped at the fake edge of the cliff. All they while I'm flying 100 ft up and invisible. See if I can kill a party with figments, glamours, and a cliff face only.

[Esgath]

You interacted with it, you didn't get proof that it's an illusion.

Seriously, what does that even mean now?
If you interact with the illusion, you get a will save to disbelieve. That we all understand.




Your character doesn't know he succeeded on a spellcraft check, the player knows that. Your character thinks he observed an illusion being cast, but the only way to be sure is to try and walk through it.

Right, my character doesn't know what a spellcraft check is, my character just knows what spell was being cast if I succeed on that check.
If I fail that check, then my character doesn't know what spell was cast and therefore doesn't have proof that it is an illusion. Now he would have to interact with the illusion to get a will save.

[Bahamut Omega]

In which case the caster did cast an illusion, but disguised it as some other spell. Now you don't have the spellcraft check to know it's an illusion, therefore you don't automatically make the save.
However if you can make a spellcraft check, and identify the spell being cast as an illusion spell, then you don't have to make a save.
Never cast illusions in line of sight to another caster or any other character with high enough spellcraft.


First of all, whoever wants to bicker over "proof". Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, there is "just" evidence. Seeing the caster cast something and determining via a spellcraft check, what spell it was should be enough. The spellcraft check has exactly two outcomes: failure aka "I don't know what spell that is" and success "It was silent image". There is no way to get more deterministic about that. If you won't qualify that as "proof" as the authors named it, then nothing will.

You have been making the argument that interaction via a spellcraft check constituted proof that it's an illusion and no save is necessary, and it's automatically disbelieved. It does not. It constitutes evidence of an illusion. Are you backing off the view that disbelief is automatic and the viewer of the illusion is entitled to a save? If so, then we agree; if not, I think you're wrong.

I also don't think you should get that save with the full +4 bonus. You don't have someone telling you that it's definitely an illusion, you suspect it's an illusion based on a spellcraft check. Just having the opportunity to make a save with my previously recommended +2 bonus is plenty benefit.

[Esgath]

You have been making the argument that interaction via a spellcraft check constituted proof that it's an illusion and no save is necessary, and it's automatically disbelieved. It does not. It constitutes evidence of an illusion. What is proof then?



Are you backing off the view that disbelief is automatic and the viewer of the illusion is entitled to a save? If so, then we agree; if not, I think you're wrong.

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion): 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.
I did not once say, that you get a saving throw by merely looking at the illusion. Only when you interact with it you get a save.
But when you have "proof", you don't need a saving throw to know it's an illusion. A successfull spellcraft check should suffice because you know what has been cast.
Also, be aware of the fact that the character would have to see the spellcaster cast to get his spellcraft check.



I also don't think you should get that save with the full +4 bonus. You don't have someone telling you that it's definitely an illusion, you suspect it's an illusion based on a spellcraft check. Just having the opportunity to make a save with my previously recommended +2 bonus is plenty benefit.
That would be your houserule and I am not here to discuss your houserules on this board. The OP did ask us about the actual rules of the game, not about houserules.

[Bahamut Omega]

Proof is swinging a sword and it passing through the illusion. This negates the need for a save. If the original caster's concentrating on the image and makes the image react appropriately, though, you would need to save. You're almost certain that you hit that dire bear, but maybe it rolled out of the way at the last moment.

Spellcraft is only evidence that the spell you identify has been cast. As previously stated, it provides no information how that spell manifests itself. The caster may've just cast it to create the figment of a pebble that you didn't see while their friend casts a silent, stilled, summon monster spell at the same time. A character with ranks in spellcraft would know this is possible. So they have evidence of an illusion and deserve a save, but they don't have absolute proof.

Nowhere in the rules as written does it state that a spellcraft check is sufficient to defeat an illusion. I fell back on the recommended DMG bonus of +2 to the check given the circumstances. So I find that my recommended middle ground to be a lot more in line with the RAW than your extrapolation on the spellcraft rules.

[Bahamut Omega]

Proof is swinging a sword and it passing through the illusion. This negates the need for a save. If the original caster's concentrating on the image and makes the image react appropriately, though, you would need to save. You're almost certain that you hit that dire bear, but maybe it rolled out of the way at the last moment.

Spellcraft is only evidence that the spell you identify has been cast. As previously stated, it provides no information how that spell manifests itself. The caster may've just cast it to create the figment of a pebble that you didn't see while their friend casts a silent, stilled, summon monster spell at the same time. A character with ranks in spellcraft would know this is possible. So they have evidence of an illusion and deserve a save, but they don't have absolute proof.

Nowhere in the rules as written does it state that a spellcraft check is sufficient to defeat an illusion. I fell back on the recommended DMG bonus of +2 to the check given the circumstances. So I find that my recommended middle ground to be a lot more in line with the RAW than your extrapolation on the spellcraft rules.

[Prince Zahn]

Don't forget that there are ways to make one spell seem like another (the False Theurgy skill trick, for instance). Any person with enough experience to identify spells should know that, so just because they identified something as an illusion spell, they can't be certain that's what was actually cas. That's part of the reason I like the beguiler/archivist mystic theurge combo.

While this can be true in some cases, how would that work in adventures where such spell disguises mentioned in the books aren't used by players? if a player nor his party member doesn't have such a method, how would he necessarily know of this? Moreover - how would he know mialee specifically could do that?
The character's knowledge of spell disguise methods shouldn't be factored in, since many adventures (whether the aforementioned spellcraft check could've been useful in them or not) don't use the books that offer them.

[Jeff the Green]

While this can be true in some cases, how would that work in adventures where such spell disguises mentioned in the books aren't used by players? if a player nor his party member doesn't have such a method, how would he necessarily know of this? Moreover - how would he know mialee specifically could do that?
The character's knowledge of spell disguise methods shouldn't be factored in, since many adventures (whether the aforementioned spellcraft check could've been useful in them or not) don't use the books that offer them.

He wouldn't necessarily know that Mialee could do it, but he probably doesn't know that she can't, either. Since spellcraft is partially about understanding how magic is cast, anyone who is capable of recognizing a spell should also know that it's possible to disguise it.

If an adventure doesn't use the books with those methods, sure, my point is invalid. But other than core-only games I've never seen a DM ban Complete Scoundrel.

[Ranting Fool]

This thread is making me want to put up some Hallucinatory Terrain to make a cliff face be 50 feet further out, have some illusory fortifications where the real cliff is, something that can be jumped over, and an illusion of my caster preforming some sort of dark ritual that needs to be stopped at the fake edge of the cliff. All they while I'm flying 100 ft up and invisible. See if I can kill a party with figments, glamours, and a cliff face only.

I have been known to chuck in an illusion or two if I feel my players are Meta-gaming a tad too much.

Often the best illusions are ones that are half-truths or simple. A narrow cliff ledge is a tad wider then it really is or that bridge looks nice and solid doesn't it :smallbiggrin: Rather then make an fake bridge just make a really brittle/deathtrap bridge look nice and solid then as they are half way across brake it.