Illusions: Fluff or Crunch

[Gamer Girl]

So how does everyone do illusions? Fluff, where your effecting the player or Crunch where your effecting the character?


I like fluff myself, it make the game much more fun.
{Scrubbed}

[Thinker]

{Scrubbed}

[Mari01]

Were you giving him the time to do each separate spellcraft check?

And there is also the argument of allowing him to interact with the illusions for said checks anyway.

[Aegis013]

Fluff and crunch aren't mutually exclusive. But if my (or the player in question's) character has the aptitude to recognize illusions quickly enough, then I don't see any problem with using that aptitude in the game. It makes reasonable sense from a role-play perspective to do so, in my estimation.

However, if he was spending excess time (as in one to two combat full combat rounds) to "Let me just detect magic on this and hmm... what's that? It's an illusion?" Then there was a problem with the DM just allowing this. I wouldn't have an antagonist lose out on that opportunity to bear down on him without some really compelling reason.

But if he could legitimately recognize them as illusions sufficiently quickly it might be reasonable to respond with. "No way, those auras are way too over the top. Maybe illusions? Yup, illusions."

[Yawgmoth]

How dare he, wanting to use his skills and affect the game, rather than flee from your expertly crafted encounter full of actual danger and interesting events! I'm shocked that he would have the nerve to make decisions for his character on his own like that; didn't he know he was having fun wrong by not doing exactly as you had planned?

[Eldan]

If you don't want a skill to identify spells, take it out of the game. You're the DM, you can do that. If you don't want that, remove it but tell your players beforehand. If there is a rule in the game, it should be fair game to actually use it, you know.

But eh. Why am I even debating this. It's not like there will actually be a genuine debate here. Just some shouting and an eventual thread lock.

[123456789blaaa]

So..much...CHOCOLATE!

[Lord_Gareth]

Affecting the player? Things in D&D can't affect the player, or if they can I want your copy of the Core Three so I can run the wackiest session ever. Now, as far as how to rule on illusions as a Dungeon Master, I have one word for you:

Interaction.

And I also have another word for you. Actually, two:

Knowledge. Spellcraft.

You see, illusions in D&D have several methods by which they may be detected and avoided and they're rather well-defined, which is a minor miracle considering how sickeningly poor the wording is everywhere else. The first is that a character interacts with an illusion - they touch it, smell it, get "cut" by it, hear or fail to hear it, observe it, or otherwise experience the illusion closely. Interacting with an illusion gives a character a chance to notice the elements that are missing and make a Will save against the illusion, as per the standard rules on saving against a spell.

The next involves a character having knowledge of magic. The skills Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion) and Spellcraft all indicate that a character has training, knowledge and proficiency when it comes to magic, its uses, specific spells and its theories. A character with ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) would be familiar with the theories of the Illusion school of magic (and with ranks in Knowledge (Religion) is likely to understand the theories of divine illusions) and a character with ranks in Spellcraft is familiar with the manifestations of various kinds of spells and can guess what spell they're looking at by observing it.

What that means is that if "Fun Kill Player" is playing a character with ranks in Spellcraft, that means he's got every right to try and define what's happening with Lord Doom. After all, it might be some sort of killing aura or, worse, an incorporeal creature like a Wraith or a Murk! He makes his series of free-action Knowledge checks and comes up with, "This is definitely a spell," on Arcana and, "This is not a recorded spell," on Spellcraft. Assuming he made the Spellcraft DC, this also comes up with, "but it does look a hell of a lot like [Minor Image/Major Image/Ghost Sound/Whatever Illusion It Was]." By RAW this isn't actually enough to disbelieve the illusion, but this is one case where RAW is not actually completely stupid - after all, his character doesn't know he succeeded a check! What "Fun Kill Player"'s character knows is that he's very confident that this is an illusion and what he chooses to do from there can be, entirely in-character, based on this knowledge; he can make a save to disbelieve or he can proceed under the assumption that what he's seeing isn't real.

It's not your player's fault if you weren't running the illusions according to the rules in the book, nor was he breaking character. "Fun Kill Player" was representing a concept that could make such checks (since Spellcraft and Knowledge can't be used untrained) and it's entirely within such a concept and character to be able to identify magical effects. If you want your illusions to be more believable, try making them mimic existing spell effects (which would at the barest minimum justify a -2 circumstance penalty on the character's roll, as defined in the Dungeon Master's Guide) or making them more subtle (the illusion of a wall where there actually is no wall is unlikely to be immediately questioned, at least until the players bust out the Search checks and start noticing it's got flaws).

TL;DR - Illusions are a method of affecting the game world and have methods by which they can be affected. Like many things in D&D they have both a fluff and a crunch element, both of which are married to the other, and your player did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Flickerdart]

So...you're mad that an expert spellcaster was able to recognize a spell? I'm not sure I understand the problem here. It's not like he used metagame knowledge to recognize Mordenkainen's Blue Smoke Machine or whatever. He used the tools provided by the system to interact with your world. Frankly, it should be expected that a spellcaster that knows about spells would take an interest in something that is obviously a spell effect and try to figure out what it is. To wit: I am a web designer. I will often view the source code of a site when I see an interesting thing, to figure out how it works, because knowing how something is done is beneficial to my professional career. If there is a website with a cool effect, a layperson might think "wow, whoever made this is a great developer". I, on the other hand, might recognize using my knowledge that the site is just using a common plugin that is not difficult to replicate, and hence not be terribly impressed. Does that make me a real-life fun killer, or just an efficient professional? Additionally, my career has a very low risk of being murdered by goblins. An adventuring wizard is at a much higher chance of that. When the only thing holding death at bay is your own skills, you can't really afford to be slip-shod about them, and that includes being inquisitive about the things other spellcasters are doing.

If Lord Doom had attempted an Intimidate check and it failed against some of the player, would you have then blamed them for having Wisdom modifiers?

[Zdrak]

The real issue here is incompatibility of playstyles. While neither side is in the wrong per se, both have different expectations and approaches to the beautiful game we love. Which is okay, because this game allows for large diversity.

What I'd suggest is for DM and players have a sit-down [best before the start of the campaign, but since obviously this moment has passed, right now will have to do], and define their expectations from the game and from each other. Several outcomes are possible:

- player and DM find common ground [agree]
- player and DM accept each other's right to have a different approach to the game [agree to disagree]
- player and DM realize they are incompatible, and this town game ain't big enough for the both of them [not a desirable outcome, but hey, I didn't promise you a rose garden]


To answer the original question, why not both?
DM: The Lord of Doom strides into the room, his body shrouded in a wreath of blue flame, and a dark halo hovering over his head.
Players: AAAARGH! We run!
Daniel the Wizard: Not so fast ... I concentrate on the flames and the Halo. Did I see something like that in any arcane texts?
DM: <rolls stuff behind the screen> Daniel jogs his memory, and realizes the Lord of Doom actually looks a lot more scary than he is, making use of minor illusions to appear powerful. The fire is not hot, and the halo is a minor darkness spell.

See how we craftily combined fluff with crunch?

[123456789blaaa]

The real issue here is incompatibility of playstyles. While neither side is in the wrong per se, both have different expectations and approaches to the beautiful game we love. Which is okay, because this game allows for large diversity.

What I'd suggest is for DM and players have a sit-down [best before the start of the campaign, but since obviously this moment has passed, right now will have to do], and define their expectations from the game and from each other. Several outcomes are possible:

- player and DM find common ground [agree]
- player and DM accept each other's right to have a different approach to the game [agree to disagree]
- player and DM realize they are incompatible, and this town game ain't big enough for the both of them [not a desirable outcome, but hey, I didn't promise you a rose garden]

I don't think that will work since the OP apparently hates the player in question.

[Eldan]

Good question. IF you hate the player already before the game starts, why play with him?

[Hiro Protagonest]

So... you don't like a player because they decided to look at what they had on their sheet rather than accept the situation as-is and just ignore their abilities?

[Flickerdart]

Hell, the problem here isn't even with illusions. Recognizing the spell has nothing to do with the character's actions (attacking Lord Doom). What was stopping him from attacking Lord Doom even if he didn't know about the spell? More importantly, why would knowing that he was using a 1st level spell swing the decision in any way? High-level spellcasters use low-level spells all the time.

And what does Intimidate have to do with any of this? If he didn't roll an Intimidate check, it doesn't matter at all. If he did, then it still doesn't matter, because illusions that offer skill bonuses can't be disbelieved, so it would still have given him the modifier. Since only NPCs can have Attitudes, using Intimidate to coerce PCs doesn't really do anything anyway.

So the ultimate series of events was just that a PC saw a scary guy and then decided that he could handle him. How is this unusual?

[Acanous]

{Scrubbed}

So anyhow. If he was making a Knowledge check on the spell (Arcana), that's a free action. If he tried to Identify the spell with Spellcraft, that's not a free action, and since both parties are aware of eachother, he can't do it as a surprise round, so it would be immediately followed by "Roll for initiative". If he beats the big bad's initiative, he can make his spellcraft, realize that it's no spell he's aware of, and then interact with it for a will save to disbelieve. (After all, "It's not any spell you know of" does not discount Psionics, Incarnum, ToB stances, etc. So he shouldn't get the save for free.)

that said, Illusions are best put to use covering something up, not making something flashy. Players are much less likely to tap the ceiling with a stick to find out they've actually walked from a tunnel into a cavern, than they are to hit a guy who's glowing all kinds of rainbow sparkles.

Same philosophy with pit traps, really. An illusionary floor does a better job of covering a real pit than a mechanical trap, because you don't get the save 'til you've tried walking on it.

Or, you know, tapped it with a stick. Some adventurers do that. "Maze with false ceiling", though, is a favorite of dragons, devils, and Aboleths everywhere.

[Claudius Maximus]

So anyhow. If he was making a Knowledge check on the spell (Arcana), that's a free action. If he tried to Identify the spell with Spellcraft, that's not a free action, and since both parties are aware of eachother, he can't do it as a surprise round, so it would be immediately followed by "Roll for initiative". If he beats the big bad's initiative, he can make his spellcraft, realize that it's no spell he's aware of, and then interact with it for a will save to disbelieve. (After all, "It's not any spell you know of" does not discount Psionics, Incarnum, ToB stances, etc. So he shouldn't get the save for free.)

Neither knowledge checks or spellcraft checks to identify spells need any action. They're not even free actions - they're non-actions, so to speak. I'm not aware of any text forcing characters to take such non-actions on their turn (except for 5-steps, but they are their own thing rules-wise, and the rules for them don't necessarily apply to other things). I was under the impression they were essentially instantaneous, and that's how I've always seen them run.

[Deophaun]

If he tried to Identify the spell with Spellcraft, that's not a free action,
As previously stated, it takes no time to make a spellcraft check.

and since both parties are aware of eachother, he can't do it as a surprise round, so it would be immediately followed by "Roll for initiative".
And even if it did take time, that's extreme. "Wait, you adjusted your pants? You coughed? Roll for initiative!" Initiative occurs at the start of combat. Looking at an effect is not combat. The villain could very well decide that he doesn't want the PC looking at the illusions that he placed there to be looked at and then... wait, wha? No. Just, no. It makes no sense.

(After all, "It's not any spell you know of" does not discount Psionics, Incarnum, ToB stances, etc. So he shouldn't get the save for free.)
If magic/psionic transparency is in effect, then yes, it does discount Pisonics. It also discounts Incarnum (why do you think that Incarnates, Soulborns, and Totemists have spellcraft on their class skill list?). And the fact that you managed a knowledge:arcana check discounts martial maneuvers.


Same philosophy with pit traps, really. An illusionary floor does a better job of covering a real pit than a mechanical trap, because you don't get the save 'til you've tried walking on it.

Or, you know, tapped it with a stick. Some adventurers do that. "Maze with false ceiling", though, is a favorite of dragons, devils, and Aboleths everywhere.
Or you could walk around with blindsight or tremorsense. Either one has implications that instantly pierce figments, no save required.

[TuggyNE]

Or you could walk around with blindsight or tremorsense. Either one has implications that instantly pierce figments, no save required.

In the case of tremorsense specifically I believe it's plausible that you could create (illusionary) architecture that isn't penetrable with your extended senses, probably involving complicated hanging walls and cantilevering or something of that nature.

[Flickerdart]

Neither knowledge checks or spellcraft checks to identify spells need any action. They're not even free actions - they're non-actions, so to speak. I'm not aware of any text forcing characters to take such non-actions on their turn (except for 5-steps, but they are their own thing rules-wise, and the rules for them don't necessarily apply to other things). I was under the impression they were essentially instantaneous, and that's how I've always seen them run.
Correct. A Knowledge check is used to determine whether or not a character knows a pertinent bit of information. it does not represent any action and does not take any time.

[Thinker]

So how many people think illusions should be Fluff or Crunch?

To actually answer the OP, I think that illusions should be like everything else. They have mechanical effects that can be described in specific ways. The RPG that is being played has rules that everyone agreed to by selecting the game. The game world is expected to work in specific ways based on those rules. Illusions have mechanical benefits and drawbacks, but also descriptors that are fun to depict.

[Karoht]

So how does everyone do illusions? Fluff, where your effecting the player or Crunch where your effecting the character?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I say both. Illusions are about two things. Creating an impression (false or genuine), and misdirection. I'll explain.
Misdirection is getting a player to ignore detail A and focus on detail B. Or in the case of your Illusionary mage, attempting to get them to run away. Or hiding a detail by looking unimportant. Think of Illusions more like a tool that a con-artist would use. Watch some Penn and Teller, especially when they explain a trick. Their use of Misdirection is superb.

Creating an Impression is something that I think more mages (especially villains) need to do more often. Think of it like this. If you have access to Illusion, why would you ever want anyone to what you actually look like, what you sound like, or any other important tidbit of info? Why would you want anyone to even know you are a magic user in the first place, if you have the option to disguise yourself and your every action?

Let's take an Aboleth for example. How do you even know you are fighting an Aboleth? Most people aren't aware that Aboleth's live in water. That is, until they're neck deep in water thanks to Hallucinatory Terrain. Hallucinatory Terrain also allows the Aboleth to hide in a false floor. Kind of like the false bottom in a chest. And it has Dominate. It's first attack on a party isn't "oogie boogie boogie I'm an Aboleth" and swat them with tentacles. Dominate a party member, the party is busy fighting the party member. They aren't going to make perception checks or anything else relevant to figure out that the bottom of the pond they are swimming in is in fact not the bottom of the pond. You look at the bottom of a swimming pool, you see what looks like a bottom, most people take that for granted. So will players.

Sounds like there was a bit of Meta-Gaming going on in your example. Which happens sometimes with Illusions. You get the players who will attempt to disbelieve in the existance of just about everything because they suspect Illusions.
Then you have the really paranoid ones. Every 5ft of wall and floor of a dungeon will be hit with Acid Splash Cantrip to mark the stone in some perminent way. No mark means Illusion. Yes, I've played with those types too.

So here's a trick. Play the Shell game with them. At least until they get True Seeing active and hard counter the Illusions. Illusions blended with Summons are often fun. Illusions and Conjurations are fun too. Wall of Stone, or an Illusion of one? Solid Fog? Or an Illusion of one? Crappy weather outside? Or just an Illusion at the doors and windows?
Abuse what they will take for granted, not what they will scrutinize.

One of my favorite tricks comes from Wile E Coyote.
There's a wall. Yeup, it's a real wall all right. And on that wall is what appears to be a door. It's open just a crack too. There may even be flickering lights visable at the doors edges, perhaps from candle or torch light beyond it.
So at some point, the party goes to the door and tries to open it. Low and behold it opens into... a patch of wall with some flickering light on it.
And that's when the people near the door can roll some saves for something like Glyph of Warding or Explosive Runes or a Symbol of X.


Last option. Excercise your superior intellect for a moment. Cause they player to question what is real and what is not and have an existential crisis, both in game and out. It doesn't really solve the problem but it's funny to watch a meta-gamer break down questioning what is real while sitting at the table of an imagination-based game.

[prufock]

Since only NPCs can have Attitudes, using Intimidate to coerce PCs doesn't really do anything anyway.

Small quibble: Intimidate could be used to demoralize. However that only (normally) applies a -2 penalty to rolls for that round, and you (usually) have to threaten to do it.


So how many people think illusions should be Fluff or Crunch?

Illusions are both fluff and crunch.

GG and player have different ideas of fun.

The end.

[erikun]

As a DM, my job is to tell the players what their characters perceive. As a player, their job is to have their characters react appropriately to said perceptions.

If a character has a bunch of knowledge skills and wants to put them to use against what they are perceiving, then that's part of the character's perception and is just fine. If the player then decides to attack because the creepy black waves is from a Black Waves of Creepiness illusion spell rather than a death aura, that's fine too. And if the other players decide to jump in because the party wizard is shouting about illusions and clubbing the BBEG with his stick, that's fine too.


I think that if you don't like this particular idea, then you might want to re-read the descriptions of Detect Magic, Spellcraft, and illusions a bit. Characters don't get to roll and automatically know every single spell on a target, especially without magical assistance and especially with spells that could literally be anything (such as illusions). And if this still bugs you, you can let everyone at the table know you're changing the base rules at the beginning of a new game.

You can also make your intimidating-looking BBEGs actually somewhat intimidating.

[Boci]

There are two problems here that you have merged into one.

1. The player isn't roleplaying. By the sounds of it the rest of the group does, and you would prefer it if all players did. As is often the case, the best solution is to talk to them.

2. You were playing the wizard badly. Illusions are about subterfuge, and the any ability that relies of subterfuge works best when (wait for it), the enemy does not know you posses that ability. In the same way a rogue doesn't advertise the spring blade they have hidden on their person, an illusionist should not poitlessly advertise that they have illusions, unless such a tactically bad choice fits their character.

[Karoht]

2. You were playing the wizard badly. Illusions are about subterfuge, and the any ability that relies of subterfuge works best when (wait for it), the enemy does not know you posses that ability. In the same way a rogue doesn't advertise the spring blade they have hidden on their person, an illusionist should not poitlessly advertise that they have illusions, unless such a tactically bad choice fits their character.Or, unless it is misdirection for something else.

When people know that most Illusions are harmless, they are less likely to treat something real but equally out of place as a threat.
IE-They found out that the Shadow Demons in room A were illusionary. It doesn't mean that the ones in room B are fake.
So the party was tricked into wasting resources fighting the phoney threat, then tries to be conservative with their resources fighting the real one until they know it's real.

Another example.
I was fighting another player. The player knew I had Illusions. I wanted him to know that. Because I knew I could take advantage of it.
We buff up. He strikes first. My Lesser Globe of Invulnerability takes care of it. I laugh and say "wow, you're terrible at telling my illusions apart aren't you?" as a free action using Ventriliquism to make it sound like I'm speaking from behind a pillar in the area. He used his Belt of Battle, fireballs the area of the Pillar. This saved my life and won me the fight via action economy, because next turn he could have just hit me with a Dispel Magic followed by Belt of Battle and an attack. He then flew into cover, but I controlled what piece of cover it was by making him think I was somewhere I wasn't. And since he never expected me to actually be me, he picked the cover on the ground not far from where I was actually standing. As a result, he was exactly where I wanted him to pick him up with Aqueous Orb, which brought him to me, Belt of Battle, and one threat of a touch spell later, he submitted.

I want opponents to know I have Illusions because they then question everything they see. Sometimes it is easier to take advantage of that as opposed to having them take what they see for granted, sometimes it isn't.

The Shell Game, AKA The Cup and Ball trick, is two layers of misdirection. Tricking players into following the ball, and by extention, tricking players into following the cup to follow the ball. Telling players "This guy has Illusions" makes them question following the cup or the ball and usually fixates them on the hands or has them looking for the slot in the table, even if there isn't one. Not giving it away keeps them fixated on the cup and ball rather than watching the hands well enough.

Watch the Penn and Teller Nail Gun Trick (youtube it) and see if you can spot the actual trick. They explain the trick, and yet they don't. See if you can figure it out. You'll see what I mean about misdirection.

But I do agree that for villains, it is typically more sneaky and subtle to just weave a few illusions in unexpectedly. Loki in Avengers was actually not bad at it.

[Flickerdart]

Isn't the hallmark of a good shell game that the game is rigged in the first place? So the best illusionist would be someone that has no illusions and just makes people think they do. :smallwink:

[Karoht]

Isn't the hallmark of a good shell game that the game is rigged in the first place? So the best illusionist would be someone that has no illusions and just makes people think they do. :smallwink:The game is always rigged. The misdirection is key.
For example, not all stage magicians are good at palming the ball, a technique critical to the trick. So, by misdirecting you to follow the cups or follow the ball, or follow a ball that isn't there, it covers a poor palming technique. The misdirection then serves to augment the trick, because palming alone isn't all that entertaining.

In truth, using the physical techniques should back up the Illusion and vice versa, but they have to synergize perfectly. An example.
Lets say the party attacks. They deal with my illusions just fine, but then my summons start to give them trouble. They then want to flee the room. Suddenly a Wall of Stone covers over (what they think is) the only exit to the room.
Does that Wall of Stone have to be a 5th level spell slot? Or can an Illusion do the trick?
Suddenly, the party thinks this guy can cast 5th level spells. Oh snap. Either the intimidation is successful and assists in subduing them, or they decide to pull out the bigger guns, on targets which may or may not exist. They begin exercising options which may not actually help them in any way, while possibly ignoring the options which may help them out.

The hallmark of a good Illusionist is that the mark has no idea what is real and what is not. The mark begins to think that the illusions are reality, and the reality is fake. Using actual Summons along with Illusions is a prime example. The danger to the mark is wasting resources that can save lives on targets that aren't there, and then not having those resources around when the targets are actually real and lives are actually on the line.

[Deophaun]

One of my favorite tricks comes from Wile E Coyote.
There's a wall. Yeup, it's a real wall all right. And on that wall is what appears to be a door. It's open just a crack too. There may even be flickering lights visable at the doors edges, perhaps from candle or torch light beyond it.
So at some point, the party goes to the door and tries to open it. Low and behold it opens into... a patch of wall with some flickering light on it.
And that's when the people near the door can roll some saves for something like Glyph of Warding or Explosive Runes or a Symbol of X.

Alternatively, is someone in your party in the habit of disbelieving everything? There's a small alcove with an illusory wall at the end. Successfully disbelieving it reveals another wall just behind it with explosive runes.

[Boci]

Alternatively, is someone in your party in the habit of disbelieving everything? There's a small alcove with an illusory wall at the end. Successfully disbelieving it reveals another wall just behind it with explosive runes.

I don't think making your save against an illusion allows you to see through it, it just tells you its an illusion.

[Acanous]

And even if it did take time, that's extreme. "Wait, you adjusted your pants? You coughed? Roll for initiative!" Initiative occurs at the start of combat. Looking at an effect is not combat. The villain could very well decide that he doesn't want the PC looking at the illusions that he placed there to be looked at and then... wait, wha? No. Just, no. It makes no sense.

If magic/psionic transparency is in effect, then yes, it does discount Pisonics. It also discounts Incarnum (why do you think that Incarnates, Soulborns, and Totemists have spellcraft on their class skill list?). And the fact that you managed a knowledge:arcana check discounts martial maneuvers.



....The big bad has walked into the room crackling with arcane power, you sit there looking at him funny, and you DON'T expect to have a call for initiative? You relate it to *Adjusting your pants*?
Dude, you are so eating a surprise round.
Transparency is not taken for granted. There's a reason they have their own skills to deal with it. Further, making a Knowledge: Arcana does NOT discount maneuvers. Making a Martial Lore does.
That's akin to saying you made your Dungeoneering check, so you know that this thing is definately not a dragon... even though Dragons are covered by Arcana.
No, you do not know if it's an effect of a stance or maneuver if you don't have the appropriate skill. Sure you can roll Arcana on it if you like, it won't discount things not covered by Arcana.

[Boci]

....The big bad has walked into the room crackling with arcane power, you sit there looking at him funny, and you DON'T expect to have a call for initiative? You relate it to *Adjusting your pants*?
Dude, you are so eating a surprise round.

1. Allowing such suprise rounds gives the players little incentive to engage NPCs in conversation, as doing so reduces the chance of them getting a suprise round, and opens up them for recieving one. Do you want to encourage such an outlook?
If the players had suddenly attacked, would you have allowed them a suprise round?

2. Making a skill check is reflexive, and is thus unlikely to register, let alone as a looking at them funnily.

[Hyooz]

I like how the "roll player" is the one using his character's knowledge and abilities to find out how best to react to the situation instead of the player's metagame assumptions based on glowing red orbs.

Or did I miss the point of the story?

[Acanous]

1. Allowing such suprise rounds gives the players little incentive to engage NPCs in conversation, as doing so reduces the chance of them getting a suprise round, and opens up them for recieving one. Do you want to encourage such an outlook?
If the players had suddenly attacked, would you have allowed them a suprise round?

2. Making a skill check is reflexive, and is thus unlikely to register, let alone as a looking at them funnily.

1: Both parties are hostile to one another, and aware of one another. This calls for an initiative check as by RAW. Once you have initiatives written down, then you can talk. Talking is a free action. This discourages the party from attacking during the middle of the bad guy's sentance, as it's not their turn in initiative order. (As soon as someone chooses to initiate combat, you default to the initiative order already rolled)
If they were non-hostile, say, if the glowy crackling guy was the royal wizard who is standing in the court addressing the king? Then they can get a surprise round attacking the guy. He's not aware they're hostile.

Why, then, would you eat a surprise round? Well, you're not hostile. You're sitting there trying to figure out what his magical effects are. Spellcraft requires an action. You either get it while readied to counterspell as part of the counterspell action, or as part of your turn. Technically speaking, you can only take free actions on your turn. So knowledge gets rolled as a reaction, as normal. Spellcraft, you roll on your turn. By claiming your spellcraft roll, you are demanding your turn. Refer then to the initiatives rolled during step 1.

Edit: This is assuming, of course, your bad guy tops the initiative order. If he doesn't, your first players get to go followed by the bad guy, who then monologues during his turn.

[Eldan]

{Scrubbed}

[Zdrak]

I don't think making your save against an illusion allows you to see through it, it just tells you its an illusion.

In that case, even simpler: an illusory wall with sharp spikes at the end of a corridor. Just behind it, a real wall with real spikes.

[Boci]

Why, then, would you eat a surprise round? Well, you're not hostile. You're sitting there trying to figure out what his magical effects are. Spellcraft requires an action.

I'm examining an evil wizard for the spells they have on them. Why wouldn't I be hostile (as in combat ready)?


By claiming your spellcraft roll, you are demanding your turn. Refer then to the initiatives rolled during step 1.

Yes, in the same way walking is demanding your turn. Plus with that RAW if I'm taking my turn, its too late for suprise rounds.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I like how the "roll player" is the one using his character's knowledge and abilities to find out how best to react to the situation instead of the player's metagame assumptions based on glowing red orbs.

Or did I miss the point of the story?
More or less quoted for truth.

There's an awful lot of Stormwind going about this. Using the rules to find out things about the world/story is just another method of engagement, like freeform roleplaying is. An RPG is where both forms can coexist in some fashion.

[Acanous]

I'm examining an evil wizard for the spells they have on them. Why wouldn't I be hostile (as in combat ready)?



Yes, in the same way walking is demanding your turn. Plus with that RAW if I'm taking my turn, its too late for suprise rounds.

So you agree then, that if there is no surprise round, it requires your turn, meaning you don't get to make the check prior to the monologue unless you beat the bbeg's initiative.

[Deophaun]

I don't think making your save against an illusion allows you to see through it, it just tells you its an illusion.
From the SRD:

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
So yes, unless it's a shadow, which is partially real, you do see through it (patterns, existing in the mind, vanish completely).

[Acanous]

{Scrubbed}

[Acanous]

From the SRD:

So yes, unless it's a shadow, which is partially real, you do see through it (patterns, existing in the mind, vanish completely).

Or unless you have that illusionist PHBII feature (Can't remember if it's Chains of Disbelief or the other one, at work) that makes your illusions stay visable after being disbelieved. (Crikey this thread moves fast)

[Boci]

So you agree then, that if there is no surprise round, it requires your turn, meaning you don't get to make the check prior to the monologue unless you beat the bbeg's initiative.

By the same type of rules that allow drown healing? Yes.

[Acanous]

Well you CAN drown heal, but there's no way to stop drowning.
..even death does not remove the drowning condition.

[Boci]

Well you CAN drown heal, but there's no way to stop drowning.
..even death does not remove the drowning condition.

I'm well aware. I'm comparing the two rules from a sense standpoint, not one of practicality.

[Deophaun]

....The big bad has walked into the room crackling with arcane power, you sit there looking at him funny, and you DON'T expect to have a call for initiative? You relate it to *Adjusting your pants*?
Dude, you are so eating a surprise round.
A person walking into a room while crackling with arcane power is going to get funny looks from everyone. It's the people who don't give him funny looks he should be concerned about.

Yes, I'm relating it to adjusting your pants.

Further, making a Knowledge: Arcana does NOT discount maneuvers. Making a Martial Lore does.
It does if your Knowledge: Arcana definitely identified the effect as arcane magic.

That's akin to saying you made your Dungeoneering check, so you know that this thing is definately not a dragon... even though Dragons are covered by Arcana.
You know it's definitely not a dragon because you successfully identified it as an ooze.

[JBento]

Arcana does NOT discount maneuvers. Making a Martial Lore does.
That's akin to saying you made your Dungeoneering check, so you know that this thing is definately not a dragon... even though Dragons are covered by Arcana.
No, you do not know if it's an effect of a stance or maneuver if you don't have the appropriate skill. Sure you can roll Arcana on it if you like, it won't discount things not covered by Arcana.

They're discounted if you pass. If you make your dungeoneering check, clearly the thing can't be a Dragon. If it were, you couldn't pass it.

[Acanous]

But...you didn't successfully identify it as an Ooze.

In this case, saying "It is possible that it is an illusion" is a decent result for the check. Spellcraft would identify it as an illusion if you were watching him cast it, but once the effect's in play, it's only "This might be an illusion", as you are required to interact with it to get the will save to disbelieve. (Otherwise illusion is useless as a school of magic).
By that same token, rolling Knowledge Arcana against an Erudite manifesting a psionic effect would get you "This might be an illusion". Rolling Arcana against a Crusader in that stance that lets him not die once a round when you watched your frenzied berserker just nail him for 9000 damage would get you "This might be an illusion".

Because really, everything there COULD be an illusion, Major Image covers a very broad spectrum of things.

[Acanous]

They're discounted if you pass. If you make your dungeoneering check, clearly the thing can't be a Dragon. If it were, you couldn't pass it.

See, I operate under a different set of ideas here. If we have say,a Mimic (Which I believe Know: Dungeoneering identifies) disguised as an animated object (Covered by Arcana) you'd need an Arcana to identify that "Something is not right with this animated object" and a Dungeoneering to identify it as a mimic...but the Dungeoneering wouldn't come into play until you could identify that it was not something covered by Arcana. Perhapes rolling against it's Disguise check.

[Theoboldi]

No. It would not. It's like saying a rocket scientist might think that a tree is an exhaust pipe, because he didn't study biology. If you have sufficient ranks of spellcraft and knowledge (arcana), you should be able to tell when something is not an illusion. Or at least not a magical effect.

[Boci]

But...you didn't successfully identify it as an Ooze.

In this case, saying "It is possible that it is an illusion" is a decent result for the check. Spellcraft would identify it as an illusion if you were watching him cast it, but once the effect's in play, it's only "This might be an illusion", as you are required to interact with it to get the will save to disbelieve. (Otherwise illusion is useless as a school of magic).
By that same token, rolling Knowledge Arcana against an Erudite manifesting a psionic effect would get you "This might be an illusion". Rolling Arcana against a Crusader in that stance that lets him not die once a round when you watched your frenzied berserker just nail him for 9000 damage would get you "This might be an illusion".

Because really, everything there COULD be an illusion, Major Image covers a very broad spectrum of things.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

Specifically:

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.

Interestingly enough, thats also the rule that means spellcraft cannot simply be identifying spells based on their components (or the dual universal language of magic as I like to call that theory).

[JBento]

Spellcraft, DC 20+spell level: Identify a spell that's already in place or in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell.

I'm not exactly sure how this qualifies as "this might be an illusion." If you pass the check, it very specifically tells you "This is Major Image."

EDIT: I have been re-ninja'ed.

[Deophaun]

Or unless you have that illusionist PHBII feature (Can't remember if it's Chains of Disbelief or the other one, at work) that makes your illusions stay visable after being disbelieved. (Crikey this thread moves fast)
Why would the person who made that trap have that feat? This is on par with someone who attacks people for looking at their flashy illusions funny.

In this case, saying "It is possible that it is an illusion" is a decent result for the check. Spellcraft would identify it as an illusion if you were watching him cast it, but once the effect's in play, it's only "This might be an illusion", as you are required to interact with it to get the will save to disbelieve. (Otherwise illusion is useless as a school of magic).
You might want to check the 3.5 Rules Compendium before you continue this discussion.

And regardless of what your Spellcraft check tells you, you still need to take a standard action to get your will save. All that you know is that the flaming skull where his head should be is an illusion, just like you know that wall is an illusion because the thief keeps yelling at you "there's an illusory wall here!" It still takes effort to disbelieve.

[Acanous]

Why wouldn't an illusionist take that ACF? It's a really good one.
Why wouldn't an illusionist attack someone who is analyzing his illusions? You're revealing yourself as an enemy caster. Casters get targetted first.

I was under the impression that illusions superceded the Spellcraft due to the already-existing method of disbelieving them written into the spells. If both apply, that leaves things very weird. That underscores the idea that illusions can't do flashy, and are *Only* useful for covering things up (You must be able to identify that there is a magical effect to get the spellcraft check) IE the false roof example.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But...you didn't successfully identify it as an Ooze.

In this case, saying "It is possible that it is an illusion" is a decent result for the check. Spellcraft would identify it as an illusion if you were watching him cast it, but once the effect's in play, it's only "This might be an illusion", as you are required to interact with it to get the will save to disbelieve. (Otherwise illusion is useless as a school of magic).
By that same token, rolling Knowledge Arcana against an Erudite manifesting a psionic effect would get you "This might be an illusion". Rolling Arcana against a Crusader in that stance that lets him not die once a round when you watched your frenzied berserker just nail him for 9000 damage would get you "This might be an illusion".

Because really, everything there COULD be an illusion, Major Image covers a very broad spectrum of things.

Read the skill description for spellcraft again. Note specifically that spell effects already in place can be identified via a DC 20+spell level check.

If the illusion was made to look like something mundane, then some sort of perception check or interaction might be called for before a spellcraft check is rolled, but for an obviously magical effect making a spellcraft check upon seeing it wouldn't be at all unusual or inappropriate.

The player hasn't done anything wrong in this case. He's just got a playstyle that doesn't necessarily mesh well with his group. GG could've taken a bit more effort to conceal the nature of the spell. There are ways to make the DC harder and to make failure give false readings. Had the crackling aura been made to look like another spell, that could've been a source of misdirection until detect magic or one of its ilk showed. Magical detection abilities can be foiled by other spells or simply getting their aura artificially jacked up to overwhelming.

The scenario painted by the op was a poor use of illusions and a good use of character skills causing friction; nothing more.

[Boci]

Why wouldn't an illusionist take that ACF? It's a really good one.
Why wouldn't an illusionist attack someone who is analyzing his illusions? You're revealing yourself as an enemy caster. Casters get targetted first.

I was under the impression that illusions superceded the Spellcraft due to the already-existing method of disbelieving them written into the spells. If both apply, that leaves things very weird. That underscores the idea that illusions can't do flashy, and are *Only* useful for covering things up (You must be able to identify that there is a magical effect to get the spellcraft check) IE the false roof example.

Its certainly a spanner in the works for illusionists, and many DMs and players may deliberatly or inadvertantly overlook that rule, but it is RAW.

[Acanous]

See, I thought it would be an instance of specific (How to disbelieve illusions as mentioned in the spell descriptor) trumping general (How to identify a spell). There may even be a case for that.

[Boci]

See, I thought it would be an instance of specific (How to disbelieve illusions as mentioned in the spell descriptor) trumping general (How to identify a spell). There may even be a case for that.

There isn't I'm afraid, as the two rules don't collide. The illusion spell discriptor determines whether or not you can will save to disbelieve, but that is completly independant of the spellcraft check to identiy the spell.

[Lord_Gareth]

See, I thought it would be an instance of specific (How to disbelieve illusions as mentioned in the spell descriptor) trumping general (How to identify a spell). There may even be a case for that.

I actually addressed this in my earlier post (it was kinda long, though, and it was only, like, two sentences that did so), but I'll add this: specific trumps general where the two conflict. In this case, there is no conflict; that is to say, identifying the illusion's spell doesn't disbelieve it, and disbelieving it doesn't tell you what kind of illusion it is. If you want the benefits (or potentially pitfalls) of disbelieving an illusion you still have to make the save, and it's technically up to the DM if the Spellcraft check qualifies as sufficient interaction to do so.

[JBento]

Those... aren't the same thing. That's like saying Fireball doesn't do damage if I identify it. :smallconfused:

[Deophaun]

Why wouldn't an illusionist take that ACF? It's a really good one.
Because the one talked about was creating traps that went off when the illusion was disbelieved. That's why.

Why wouldn't an illusionist attack someone who is analyzing his illusions? You're revealing yourself as an enemy caster. Casters get targetted first.
A) Because it's not analyzing. It's a non-action. The illusionist doesn't know you identified it.
B) Because the illusion is meant to be seen.
C) Because the Sense Motive check, which you appear completely oblivious to, to determine that this person has seen through your illusion and is keeping coy about it, requires one minute of social interaction. Yeah, roll initiative on that. We get 10 rounds to beat you to a pulp while you figure that one out.
D) A little something called self-preservation. Illusionists are going to be the ones least likely to get into a straight confrontation with you, because they aren't likely to survive it. If they know their opponent has seen through their veils, they're going to bug out.

I was under the impression that illusions superceded the Spellcraft due to the already-existing method of disbelieving them written into the spells.
It doesn't supersede because it's not a method of disbelieving. You need to make a Will save to disbelieve, and the Spellcraft check does not give that to you. It still requires a standard action of observation to get that.

What this means is that you have to make your illusions believable and mundane so people don't start breaking out the Spellcraft checks. You make an illusion of a tree in the forest, no one's going to question it until they lean up against it.

And if you have a player that routinely makes Spellcraft checks for absolutely everything he comes across, you have my permission to hit him. (Personally, I start having them roll Concentration checks with increasing penalties, as it's tough to be that alert for long.)

[Acanous]

Because the one talked about was creating traps that went off when the illusion was disbelieved. That's why.

Somehow I missed *That* point of the discussion entirely. I thought we were talking about an illusionist who was using illusions in flashy manner, not one who disguised traps (I used a trap analogy back on page 1, but that would benefit from the ACF, not be hindered by it)

[123456789blaaa]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrubbed}

[Acanous]

{scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for review.