Looking for DM advice: "I walk through the Illusion."

[Azernak0]

I am playing an Illusionist in a new game that just started. Pretty basic stuff overall. But here is what happened last session that I can see being an ongoing concern:

We were walking in the woods with a town lieutenant and a bunch of citizens when we discovered that the lieutenant was a werewolf and was leading us not to a group of civilians that needed help from a band of troglodytes but to a bunch of werewolves who were likely going to turn and/or eat us. Naturally the civies weren't willing to turn back to town because their respected lieutenant was leading the way. Not wanting a blood bath, I threw up an Illusion of a bunch of troglodytes marching towards us. This ended up scattering the civies and saving them from being Lon Cheney Jr's din-din.

However, one player just ran straight through the Illusion because the player knew it was an illusion. The thing is, I don't know how I would have handled a player just walking through an Illusion of an army because "I didn't see them and then I did." The reason he (player) ran right through is because the character and the player were not sure if there were actually civilians needing help. It was the first time that my character had thrown up an Illusion that big and actually made sound.

I am just wondering how you as DM's would handle this. It is a boon for me if everyone on the team treats Illusions as such because it means that I won't have them wasting actions trying to walk around an iron wall or avoiding the fake sticky web but my DM Sense tingled and I was not sure how I would handle the case that happened in the woods.

[Mirakk]

Make a will save to determine it's an illusion. If they make it, they can run through it. Otherwise, I'd say that they make way for the illusionary person rather can collide full-force with them.

[Jeff the Green]

You can arrange a predetermined signal that you're casting an illusion. That gives them proof that it's an illusion and so they don't need a save to disbelieve it.

[BowStreetRunner]

Just because you don't see something from one moment to the next does not mean in illusion is the explanation - and even if it does you can't be sure what is the illusion and what isn't.

Have you ever been surprised by someone you didn't realize was there? The player might have known why these people suddenly appeared, but the character would not necessarily have that information.

There could be a trick to the terrain - a quick dip or rise that he missed. They might have actually just walked 'through' an illusion. Maybe the illusion is the terrain and these people just came out of it. They could have just teleported.

There are lots of possible explanations for what the character saw. Deducing the correct explanation just because it is the correct one is metagaming. My advice would be that next time, ask the player to make the will save. If he fails, tell him to come up with 2-3 possible alternate explanations to what he saw then roll randomly to determine which he believes.

[Jeff the Green]

My advice would be that next time, ask the player to make the will save. If he fails, tell him to come up with 2-3 possible alternate explanations to what he saw then roll randomly to determine which he believes.

Doesn't actually work. You have to interact with the illusion to get a save, and looking at it doesn't count.

Also, I dislike (and most players dislike) my DMs telling me what my characters believe or don't believe. If one of my players did this, I'd let it slide this one time, and if it happened again, I'd tell them to stop metagaming. But, as I said earlier, it's an easy thing to get around. Even easier if you take a level of Mindbender.

[Flickerdart]

If you want illusions to work, you need to put some work into them. A bunch of trogs out of nowhere is incredibly suspicious. If you describe that, say, several stumps and trees throughout the forest suddenly drop the camouflage tarps they were holding, because they are trogs and not trees at all, then that seems a lot more legit (and if the player tries to run through them, he runs into a tree). Likewise, if you describe the character seeing a creature lurking in the shadows, and then another, and then another, then it's kind of implied that these are hiding creatures that the character's spot check noticed, and again he can't just run through them because he doesn't know where they are (the glimpses of them that he catches in the shadows are of course missing when he goes to the spot).

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, I don't think you can use "Sudden Appearance" as grounds for "It must be an illusion" in the same game that has spells like Summon Monster X and Teleport.

So as a DM I'd have Noped him on that, made him roll a will save. If he failed he basically "tricked" himself into thinking it was real and acted like such. Colliding with and falling down as he bounced off a troglodyte.

Though there's enough going on with that story I would have wondered why he'd think anyone was out there anyway. I mean... taking untrained civilians on a rescue mission against dangerous monsters... sounds fishy right off the bat.

Anyway. Yes. Bluff to signal each other discretely when you have stuff like that going on. Or if you don't want to spend the ranks on bluff you could always have your characters come up with some sort of Cant. An ability that was axed from earlier editions, very niche, but useful when you needed it? The thief's cant. No reason you can't try to replicate it.

[Flickerdart]

Drow Sign Language would be a good choice, since it isn't even verbal.

[Spuddles]

Doesn't actually work. You have to interact with the illusion to get a save, and looking at it doesn't count.

Also, I dislike (and most players dislike) my DMs telling me what my characters believe or don't believe. If one of my players did this, I'd let it slide this one time, and if it happened again, I'd tell them to stop metagaming. But, as I said earlier, it's an easy thing to get around. Even easier if you take a level of Mindbender.

If your illusion is making noise, you get a will save.

[pbdr]

How do spellcraft checks ad illusions work? For instance, if you cast an illusion on another caster an they identify the spell with spellcraft, do they automatically know it is an illusion?

[ArcturusV]

That's kinda DM specific. I've never seen a written rule for it.

The way it has came down around the table is:

DM Alpha: Well, you know an illusion is cast, and since you got some 26 Int and thus you are a genius by any sense of the term, you can instantly pick out what is likely an Illusion, autopassing it.

DM Beta: You know an illusion is cast, but you don't know what is necessarily illusory. But you can compare the surroundings with the prior surroundings and get an "interacting with it" bonus to your will save versus the illusion of +4.

DM Gamma: Okay, you know an illusion has been cast. Why don't YOU tell me what feature you think is an illusion, or what was a prior illusion being rewritten, or if the illusion is a copy layered on top of a real object just to fake you out (Note: That is a really good way to screw with people. "Oh, he cast an illusion then that Ogre walked in. It's obviously fake... *whack* Ow."). Good luck...

[BowStreetRunner]

How do spellcraft checks ad illusions work? For instance, if you cast an illusion on another caster an they identify the spell with spellcraft, do they automatically know it is an illusion?

You can use spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) to identify an illusion spell you observe being cast (DC 15 + spell level). For this to work you have to be present when the spell is being cast of course, so it is fairly limited.

You can use spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) to identify an illusion spell that's already in place and in effect if you can see or detect the effects of the spell (DC 20 + spell level). Note that while you don't actually have to suspect an illusion is present to make this check, you do have to believe a magical effect is present. So if you have no reason to suspect magic is in use, this won't help you.

You can use spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) to identify materials created or shaped by an illusion effect (DC 20 + spell level). Again, you have to have some reason to suspect the materials have a magical origin of some sort in order to apply this, you don't necessarily have to suspect it is an illusion.

You can use spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) after rolling a saving throw against an illusion spell targeted on you, to determine what that spell was (DC 25 + spell level). While failing the save necessarily negates this opportunity, if you successfully make your save even if your character does not observe any obvious repercussions of the effect you can still use spellcraft to attempt to identify it.

Once a character identifies an illusion spell with spellcraft, the character does not need to make a save against it. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion): "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."

Edit: In response to the post just above this one - if you succeed on a spellcraft check you don't just identify that an illusion has been cast, you actually identify the specific illusion spell that was used.

[Douglas]

They know that you cast an illusion spell at the exact moment whatever-it-is appeared. They should very strongly suspect that it is an illusion, and act accordingly. Identifying your spell is not necessarily proof of your illusion, however, as it is possible to arrange things cleverly to make the spell identification part of a deception.

For example:
Casters A and B are allies, fighting caster C. Caster B is invisible and/or hidden from C. B readies an action to cast Prismatic Wall when A casts a spell. Caster A casts Silent Image, creating an illusion of a small speck of dirt on the floor behind his right foot.

To caster C, it appears that A cast a Silent Image to create the appearance of a Prismatic Wall. Caster C is likely to assume that A is running a giant bluff, and intentionally walk right through the assumed-illusory wall in order to get at him, only to get hit with all 7 prismatic effects from the quite-real wall.

If a caster observes someone actually casting a Silent Image of a Prismatic Wall, he can't be truly certain just from a Spellcraft check that he is not facing the above scenario instead. Thus, succeeding on the check is ground for strong suspicion but is not inherently proof.

For a simpler scenario, there are at least one or two ways to disguise your spellcasting components to give a fake result to spellcraft. Simply use one of those to disguise your casting of Prismatic Wall as Silent Image, and you can pull off this deception without needing an allied and undetected caster's help.


Edit: In response to the post just above this one - if you succeed on a spellcraft check you don't just identify that an illusion has been cast, you actually identify the specific illusion spell that was used.
Yes, but many of the best illusion spells are highly versatile and can show almost anything the caster can imagine, and Spellcraft does not identify caster-chosen spell options such as what image to show. A Spellcraft check gets you "he cast Silent Image". It does not get "he cast Silent Image to create the image of an ogre".

[ArcturusV]

Douglas has the right of it. Okay, you knew I cast Minor Image. I'm in a dungeon room. Literally ANYTHING in there, from a single speck of dirt, to a section of wall, any of the furniture, any of the creatures, any of the objects, could have been an illusion that could be formed by that spell.

[awa]

So as a DM I'd have Noped him on that, made him roll a will save. If he failed he basically "tricked" himself into thinking it was real and acted like such. Colliding with and falling down as he bounced off a troglodyte.


"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw"
for example being able to walk right through the illusion

illusions (with some exceptions) don't have any mass if he makes the save he knows the trogs are an illusion and can see through them if he fails he can still try and run through them he just risks getting mangled if hes wrong and they were real.

if you want illusions with non illusionary effects you need shadow spells



the obvious trick is to create an illusion that is sufficiently believable that it does not occur to the target to poke it and or make the illusion cover up something real.

[Slipperychicken]

Come one people, this is easy. You used a lazy, obvious illusion, and your Fighter saw through it.


1. He sees you cast a spell (obviously waving your arms around, shouting arcane dweomers and incantations), a bunch of Troglodytes appear out of thin air the moment you stop chanting, and nothing else happens. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's magic.

2. Armies of Troglodytes don't appear out of nowhere. It just doesn't happen.

3. He knows you're not a strong enough caster to summon an army of Troglodytes. That's pretty much impossible, barring Epic magics even the gods themselves don't know. Also, you'd have done it before if you could.

4. What's more likely? You have the epic power to summon armies, Troglodytes spontaneously came into existence, or you're using an illusion spell?

[Deaxsa]

forgetting about noise for a minute, wouldn't anyone who made the Knowledge: Nature check also get to make a will save for not smelling the trogs?

[ArcturusV]

That's what I call Will Saving throws for. Though admittedly that's applying more logic to the game than needed, and I always figured the example was kinda silly or possibly badly written.

Lets say you come across a wall. Someone says "Hey, that's not really a wall, it's an illusion".

Would you just run right through it? It would require a serious gut check and iron determination not to force yourself to flinch away at the last moment just in case you're about to run face first into a brick wall.

(Now that I think of it... that'd be a funny trick for me to use as an Illusionist. Tell people things are illusions and they can just charge through it to watch them slam into walls, etc, endless fun)

Now careful poking? Sure. But just run at full tilt through what you hope is and illusion? I'd call a will save because you are talking about taking a risk that you're about to go against all survival instincts to do something that has a chance of being incredibly stupid. And forcing yourself to act that way against every fiber of your being.

[Slipperychicken]

Lets say you come across a wall. Someone says "Hey, that's not really a wall, it's an illusion".

Would you just run right through it? It would require a serious gut check and iron determination not to force yourself to flinch away at the last moment just in case you're about to run face first into a brick wall.


Several things:


A D&D character (especially a Fighter) routinely gets hit with much worse than a wall, and knows he'll get patched up instantly with magic.

If this person is the party caster, you know you can trust him.

You can trust the caster to give you good intel, he's saved your life several times up to this point, and you have little reason to believe he's pranking/betraying you.

If it's truly urgent, you may not have a choice.

If it isn't truly urgent, you can spare 3 seconds to throw a rock at the wall (if it passes through, the wall's an illusion. If it bounces off the wall, it's real). Or run 10ft pole-first.

Illusions are a thing in this world.

[Flickerdart]

Douglas has the right of it. Okay, you knew I cast Minor Image. I'm in a dungeon room. Literally ANYTHING in there, from a single speck of dirt, to a section of wall, any of the furniture, any of the creatures, any of the objects, could have been an illusion that could be formed by that spell.
Or you used False Theurgy and it actually was a Delayed Blast Fireball.

[Azernak0]

Come one people, this is easy. You used a lazy, obvious illusion, and your Fighter saw through it.

Not really the point of the matter. I am not the DM and the person that ran through is a fellow party member. I wasn't trying to fool the party members; it was mostly to get the peasants from stopping into the maws of werewolfie lunch. That was effective but the "I walk through the illusion" part got my interest.

The trogs didn't just poof into existence. Everyone was a human so they were pretty much blind in the nighttime woods. The illusory trogs simply stepped out of the darkness.

I am only asking how that sort of thing could be handled from now on, merely as a curiosity because, again, I am not the DM. It wasn't so much the "Trogdor know this illusion!" it was the metagame knowledge of the player, not the character, knowing it was an illusion. As I said; it is actually a good thing that the players always use their knowledge to state that it is an illusion but it still has me interested in the "I DM as well" part of my brain.

[Talya]

Come one people, this is easy. You used a lazy, obvious illusion, and your Fighter saw through it.


1. He sees you cast a spell (obviously waving your arms around, shouting arcane dweomers and incantations), a bunch of Troglodytes appear out of thin air the moment you stop chanting, and nothing else happens. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's magic.

2. Armies of Troglodytes don't appear out of nowhere. It just doesn't happen.

3. He knows you're not a strong enough caster to summon an army of Troglodytes. That's pretty much impossible, barring Epic magics even the gods themselves don't know. Also, you'd have done it before if you could.

4. What's more likely? You have the epic power to summon armies, Troglodytes spontaneously came into existence, or you're using an illusion spell?

All legitimate reasoning. This gives him cause to attempt to run through the illusion without metagaming.

Then, when he interacts with the illusion, he has to roll a will save to disbelieve it. Guess what happens if he fails his save?

He'll actually bounce off the illusion. (/Morpheus on "The mind makes it real.")

[Deophaun]

Then, when he interacts with the illusion, he has to roll a will save to disbelieve it. Guess what happens if he fails his save?

He'll actually bounce off the illusion. (/Morpheus on "The mind makes it real.")
No, he won't, because figments are not mind-affecting. If he runs through the wall, and he fails his will save, he still runs through the wall. At that point, he's presented with proof that the wall is an illusion, and it becomes a translucent outline.

Moral of the story: Illusions are fragile. If someone has reason to suspect your illusion isn't real, it collapses without much effort.

As for spellcraft, just to be clear, a DC 15+ spell level will tell you that the wizard just cast major image, but you won't know which of the five ogres is the illusory one. A DC 20+ spell level check will tell you that the second ogre from the right is the result of major image.

[Slipperychicken]

Then, when he interacts with the illusion, he has to roll a will save to disbelieve it. Guess what happens if he fails his save?

He'll actually bounce off the illusion. (/Morpheus on "The mind makes it real.")

If he fails the save after interacting, he thinks he bounced off. In reality, he "flinched" off because the illusion defeated his mind by reacting in the expected way. You could argue that seeing something pass through the illusion counts as proof so he gets a +4 to his save.

The metagaming is a big issue. You could try telling him to stop metagaming, and you can pass notes to the DM for what spell you cast.

[Talya]

If he fails the save after interacting, he thinks he bounced off. In reality, he "flinched" off because the illusion defeated his mind by reacting in the expected way. You could argue that seeing something pass through the illusion counts as proof so he gets a +4 to his save.

The metagaming is a big issue. You could try telling him to stop metagaming, and you can pass notes to the DM for what spell you cast.

That's rather what I meant. The mind makes it real to the extent that the mind has that capability. He bounces off because when he runs into the illusion, he knows it is real, he feels it is real, and so he stops moving and falls backward. If the illusion were a bridge over a river of lava, the mind can't make him stand on nothing, he's going to fall through.

[RogueDM]

Yeah, I use will saves for getting past ones own sense of self preservation. If they suspect a wall enough to attempt to run through it, then I would at least give them a bonus to that save or chalk it up to some reckless abandon. For things like raging infernos and bottomless pits I'm a little more stringent on Save or back-off.

From the DM side, I don't think any fighters will be attempting to run through any troglodytes anytime soon, as they wont hear the DM saying "And the wizard casts Major Image" or some-such. It will be, "the evil wizard waves his arms about and X troglodytes appear". Could have summoned them (unlikely but still) or teleported them, or even just de-cloaked them. Your fighter probably isn't making the necessary spellcraft check, though a wizard may and could reasonably guess at the illusion... but by the time he's figured it out and communicated it to the party...

Cutting to the point, without hearing you announce the spell to the DM (since you'd be the DM in theory) the party would be more likely to proceed with caution without access to that information. How to approach this as a player? A: Shrug it off. B: Just say "How does he know what spell I cast?" if necessary use the fighter's lack of spellcraft, knowledge arcane, or low INT score to poke at his arcane inadequacies.

To the argument that the fighter knows from experience what the caster can and cannot do: The characters are not aware of when other characters level, nor do most casters make a point of announcing when they've learned new spells. True, they've never seen him summon an army of trogs before, but nor had he summoned audible illusions before. Nor does the fighter know that summoning an army of trogs is an unattainable feat.

I'd opt with A as a player since it isn't worth the breath, and as a DM it likely wont be an issue if you don't make your players privy to too much information without the requisite checks.

[Deophaun]

That's rather what I meant. The mind makes it real to the extent that the mind has that capability. He bounces off because when he runs into the illusion, he knows it is real, he feels it is real, and so he stops moving and falls backward.
Do you have anything, just the slightest thing, to support any of this? A single quote or anything? Because that is quite the feat for something that is not mind affecting (illusory wall, for example). If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, such an illusion of an ogre swinging a club would be able to knock prone anyone who disbelieved it, or maybe even bullrush them. But, we have the problem of figments being called out as "useless for attacking... directly." Heck, you wouldn't be able to probe such a surface to check if it's real, as your mind would just fill in the blanks (again, contradicting RAW).

So, I'm going to ask for at least a shred of supporting text for this assertion, as every other piece of RAW says that illusions do not work that way.

[Slipperychicken]

To the argument that the fighter knows from experience what the caster can and cannot do: The characters are not aware of when other characters level, nor do most casters make a point of announcing when they've learned new spells. True, they've never seen him summon an army of trogs before, but nor had he summoned audible illusions before. Nor does the fighter know that summoning an army of trogs is an unattainable feat.


He should know:

Summoning armies is way beyond what any mortal is capable of (much like swimming up waterfalls and casting in AMFs)
He has an understanding of the guy's capabilities from fighting alongside him.
The caster most likely introduced himself as an illusionist and not an army-summoner.
Trogs are not that good at hiding. It's magic.
Even if the illusion was "real" summoning, the Trogs would be allies and let the Fighter pass through their space.

[Jack_Simth]

If you want illusions to work, you need to put some work into them. A bunch of trogs out of nowhere is incredibly suspicious.It would be, except that they were, in fact, specifically heading towards a location where there were supposedly a bunch of trogs.

[Talya]

Do you have anything, just the slightest thing, to support any of this? A single quote or anything? Because that is quite the feat for something that is not mind affecting (illusory wall, for example). If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, such an illusion of an ogre swinging a club would be able to knock prone anyone who disbelieved it, or maybe even bullrush them. But, we have the problem of figments being called out as "useless for attacking... directly." Heck, you wouldn't be able to probe such a surface to check if it's real, as your mind would just fill in the blanks (again, contradicting RAW).

So, I'm going to ask for at least a shred of supporting text for this assertion, as every other piece of RAW says that illusions do not work that way.0


That doesn't contradict RAW at all. You cannot probe an illusory wall to see if it's real...not without your will save being successful, anyway. That's "interacting" with the illusion. If you push against an illusory wall, now you get your will save. Succeed, and what do you know, your hand goes right through it. Fail, and you think your hand is pushed up against something solid.

That's the purpose of the will save. You're not getting through that wall without succeeding on it.

[Deophaun]

That doesn't contradict RAW at all. You cannot probe an illusory wall to see if it's real...not without your will save being successful, anyway.
Which is exactly false.

This spell creates the illusion of a wall, floor, ceiling, or similar surface. It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally. Touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface, though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear.
Note, this is more powerful than ordinary figments, as ordinary figments would become translucent outlines at that point, while illusory wall does not.

That's "interacting" with the illusion.
No. That is "one" way of interacting with an illusion, and the most effective way (the equivalent of falling through it, which is an auto-success to disbelieve). Other ways to interact with the illusion: throw something at it, attack it, use it, talk to it (where appropriate), take a standard action to make a spot check, search it.

If you push against an illusory wall, now you get your will save. Succeed, and what do you know, your hand goes right through it. Fail, and you think your hand is pushed up against something solid.
{Scrubbed}

Let's also look at the description of a pattern:

Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
See that "BUT" there? Yeah, that's why you're wrong. Figments do not affect anyone's mind. If they did, they would, by definition, be patterns.

IThat's the purpose of the will save. You're not getting through that wall without succeeding on it.
False.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
{Scrubbed}

[NichG]

The right way to run this is to insist on passed notes for illusions. Basically without that its impossible to tell whether you would have probed the illusion without knowing OOC that it was an illusion.

If the DM says 'an army of troglodytes appears out of nowhere' and the fighter says 'I bullrush the army!' then I'd say thats a valid choice of action. If someone says 'I cast Major Image', DM says 'an army appears', and the fighter says that, then its really hard to tell anymore whether the bull rush was because of some insight or just because of OOC knowledge.

[Talya]

Which is exactly false.
{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}


1) You quoted "Illusory Wall," which is the only illusion spell to specifically state those limitations, implying that the others don't have them. Why would illusory wall have those limitations? Doesn't that make it strictly inferior to, say "Silent Image" which is 3 levels lower and can also make a wall? No. That's all about duration.

2) ALL forms of interaction are covered with "interaction." The only thing interaction gets you on silent/minor/major image is a saving throw. If you fail that saving throw, you believe the illusion to be true. This means you cannot walk through it, because you cannot choose to walk through something that is real, and you believe it is real. You don't believe you can go through it, so you can't, at least not under your own power. Momentum or gravity can pull you through, but that's it -- and you better not use those things in a metagaming fashion. You don't run through the wall and get through it by momentum any way if you fail your saving throw. Why? Because you don't even suspect it's an illusion until you make your save. You're not going to allow yourself to run through it. If this were not true, all illusion spells would have no saving throws, as interactions would automatically prove that the illusion is not real. But they don't. Touch the silent/minor/major image, and you get a saving throw. That's it. It confers no other advantage.

Metagaming is not nice.

[Deophaun]

Unresponsive
{Scrubbed}

[Talya]

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

Burden of proof is on you, Deophaun.

You're quoting an entirely different spell, and claiming its verbiage applies to other spells that lack it. Your statement also contradicts the spirit of those spell descriptions.

[Azernak0]

The right way to run this is to insist on passed notes for illusions. Basically without that its impossible to tell whether you would have probed the illusion without knowing OOC that it was an illusion.

It was a note passed to the DM. I never mentioned that I was casting Minor Image. It was actually the first case of me casting any kind of Illusion spell in combat because it was the first session and we were level one (Gnome Illusionist substitution level for Image line one level sooner). The note was not to fool any players but because there was another character trying to RP the civies not to follow the lieutenant. It wasn't working, thus "the trogs are upon us." Didn't want to talk over another player when he was working his shtick.

The disbeliever in question was a level 1 Kobold Cleric that, as the player described the back story, "crawled out of the marsh as an exile of his tribe five months ago." I was essentially sitting in the middle of the peasant militia with everyone else either in front of me or behind me with a bunch of "sweaty, panting fishers" in between us. The trogs were said to walk out of the tree line into visibility. The brave kobold kept running with the player saying something akin to "I walk through the Illusion."

It was not an issue with him running through the trogs because the DM allows me to alter the Illusion in minor fashions on other people's actions providing I still concentrate on it; I was allowed to make the images surround him and make it look like he was being murdered 'off screen.' That is what the DM allowed. The character had no reason for the 'painted leads' to stop; he only did he saw and heard the cleric making a huge fuss about the town being lead into ultimate danger. The illusion was mostly meant to stop the 2 HP Commoners, which was successful.

I am asking because when I, dude in the chair, I wondered how I would have handled it as a DM because I couldn't find other than "your character doesn't know that" but that always leads into the "my character knows what spells/mechanical engineering/model rocketry/what berries are poisonous" thing.

[Jack_Simth]

1) You quoted "Illusory Wall," which is the only illusion spell to specifically state those limitations, implying that the others don't have them. Why would illusory wall have those limitations? Doesn't that make it strictly inferior to, say "Silent Image" which is 3 levels lower and can also make a wall? No. That's all about duration.

2) ALL forms of interaction are covered with "interaction." The only thing interaction gets you on silent/minor/major image is a saving throw. If you fail that saving throw, you believe the illusion to be true. This means you cannot walk through it, because you cannot choose to walk through something that is real, and you believe it is real. You don't believe you can go through it, so you can't, at least not under your own power. Momentum or gravity can pull you through, but that's it -- and you better not use those things in a metagaming fashion. You don't run through the wall and get through it by momentum any way if you fail your saving throw. Why? Because you don't even suspect it's an illusion until you make your save. You're not going to allow yourself to run through it. If this were not true, all illusion spells would have no saving throws, as interactions would automatically prove that the illusion is not real. But they don't. Touch the silent/minor/major image, and you get a saving throw. That's it. It confers no other advantage.

Metagaming is not nice.

Let's see.... we have the illusion school definition:
Illusion

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Figment

A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
Glamer

A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Pattern

Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Phantasm

A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression. (It’s all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see.) Third parties viewing or studying the scene don’t notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.
Shadow

A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

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 successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
And then there's the question of what spell you're using...
Disguise Self explicitly doesn't help against touch (and thus, in touching an illusory bit you go right through it, which is proof enough if the thing is supposed to be solid).
Hallucinary Terrain is explictly "look, sound, and smell like" - no touch, touch isn't fooled, so touching that illusory rock tells you immediately that it's false.
Illusory Wall... has already been mentioned, again, no mention of it tricking touch.
Major Image... works like silent image, but adds "sound, smell, and thermal" - again, nothing tactile.
Minor image... works like silent image, but adds (unintelligble) sound. Again, nothing tactile.
Permanent Image... adds "visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements" - still no touch - to Silent Image.
Programmed Image... extends Silent Image, adding "visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements, including intelligible speech" - still no touch.
Seeming... acts like disguise self. Touching a part that isn't really there is proof.
Silent Image... is visual only. Can't fool touch, so if you touch it, you break it.

Veil includes touch. So yes, this one could potentially make someone look like something that could stop a person, and convince them not to go forward after touching.

Mirage Arcana is of note in that it includes tactile elements, so yes, that one could potentially stop someone charging.

So there's potentially two of the Core illusion spells that might do what you seem to want to get out of Major image.

So... yeah. You touch a Major Image of something, you've got a sense that's reporting back "no, nothing there" and get the auto-save.




It was a note passed to the DM. I never mentioned that I was casting Minor Image. It was actually the first case of me casting any kind of Illusion spell in combat because it was the first session and we were level one (Gnome Illusionist substitution level for Image line one level sooner). The note was not to fool any players but because there was another character trying to RP the civies not to follow the lieutenant. It wasn't working, thus "the trogs are upon us." Didn't want to talk over another player when he was working his shtick.
...

So, the player saw the situation, decided that the troglodites simply didn't make sense, assumed they were an illusion based on them not making sense there, and then proceeded to test that.

They player didn't know you were using an illusion, he only suspected, and tested it in game.

...

I'm sorry, I don't see any meta-gaming here, myself.

[dspeyer]

He should know:

Trogs are not that good at hiding. It's magic.


It's a racial class skill and they have a racial bonus. And they can take class levels. Throw in some circumstance bonuses, like a dense forest at night, and why shouldn't they beat a fighter's spot check? That's cross-class anyway.

[Duke of Urrel]

Not wanting a blood bath, I threw up an Illusion of a bunch of troglodytes marching towards us. This ended up scattering the civies and saving them from being Lon Cheney Jr's din-din.

It looks like your illusion did its job, then!


However, one player just ran straight through the Illusion because the player knew it was an illusion. The thing is, I don't know how I would have handled a player just walking through an Illusion of an army because "I didn't see them and then I did." The reason he (player) ran right through is because the character and the player were not sure if there were actually civilians needing help. It was the first time that my character had thrown up an Illusion that big and actually made sound.

In my opinion, a player who merely suspects that a thing is an illusion does not yet disbelieve the illusion. Even if a player has doubts about where an illusory creature came from, it still looks solid. Remember, even creatures that suddenly appear out of nowhere may be conjured rather than illusory. If illusory creatures seem to threaten many observers at once, my house rule as a DM is to grant Will saves to only a decisive subgroup among them. In other words, I grant one save for up to five observers, two saves for six to 20 observers, or three saves for 21 or more observers, but the observers who get Will saves are always those whose Will saves are the most likely to succeed. Another house rule of mine is that a player whose Will save fails must role-play that failure until new evidence makes another Will save possible (or even unnecessary, as I will explain below). Only a player whose Will save succeeds perceives an illusion as a nearly transparent form even at a distance, without having to demonstrate that it is illusory.

On the other hand, I believe a DM should always allow a suspicious player to act on his or her suspicion. If as a player you want to try to walk through a seemingly solid wall, you should be allowed to do so. It's not quite as easy to "walk through" an illusory creature, because the creature can move, as directed by the illusionist. However, illusory creatures have a low AC, and striking one of them – that is, swishing a mêlée weapon through one of them – is enough to prove to yourself (and to everybody with human Intelligence who witnesses your demonstration from up close) that these creatures are insubstantial. A demonstration like this grants instant disbelief, without any need to make a Will save. In other words, before you see somebody walk through an illusory wall, it still looks solid, but after you've seen this demonstration, it looks translucent and fake to you.

[awa]

although with d&d being the way it is just becuase one guy was able to run through an apparent brick wall does not means it's actually an illusion.

[Duke of Urrel]

although with d&d being the way it is just becuase one guy was able to run through an apparent brick wall does not means it's actually an illusion.

That's an interesting point. You're thinking of the Phase Door spell, right?

Of course, this is a high-level spell, and not many people can either create or use a Phase Door. So if I see you disappear into a wall, the more likely explanation is that the wall is illusory, not that you are a sorcerer or wizard of 13th level or higher, or a cleric of 15th level or higher.

But there's another factor to consider. If I use a Phase Door to pass through a wall, I am fully aware that the wall is real. On the other hand, if I suspect that an illusory wall is unreal and then confirm my suspicion by walking through it, I immediately disbelieve that the wall is real. Here's a proposed house rule: A demonstration that a thing is illusory works on observers if and only if the demonstrator disbelieves the illusion. If I'm a wizard and I disappear through a wall using the Phase Door spell, I can't make anybody disbelieve the wall, because I myself know full well that it is real and that I can pass through it only because I become ethereal when I do. But if I'm a fighter and I boldly walk through a wall because I suspect it's an illusion, and my suspicion proves to be correct, then I immediately disbelieve the illusion, and so does everybody else who sees me perform this demonstration.

[TuggyNE]

Here's a proposed house rule: A demonstration that a thing is illusory works on observers if and only if the demonstrator disbelieves the illusion. If I'm a wizard and I disappear through a wall using the Phase Door spell, I can't make anybody disbelieve the wall, because I myself know full well that it is real and that I can pass through it only because I become ethereal when I do. But if I'm a fighter and I boldly walk through a wall because I suspect it's an illusion, and my suspicion proves to be correct, then I immediately disbelieve the illusion, and so does everybody else who sees me perform this demonstration.

I'm not sure that really makes sense; it's better to avoid the unknowability of "did that person actually suspect it was illusionary beforehand or not", especially since there is already a mechanic for this sort of differentiation: a successfully disbelieved illusion becomes translucent, but a disbelieved real object does not change.

[Duke of Urrel]

I'm not sure that really makes sense; it's better to avoid the unknowability of "did that person actually suspect it was illusionary beforehand or not", especially since there is already a mechanic for this sort of differentiation: a successfully disbelieved illusion becomes translucent, but a disbelieved real object does not change.

I didn't mean that suspicion beforehand made a demonstration believable; I meant that the confirmation of a suspicion is part of what makes a demonstration effective, both for the demonstrator and for observers.

If I step into an illusory wall on the suspicion that it is illusory, my response when I encounter zero resistance is likely to be: "A-HA!" And everybody who sees me enter and exit the wall and hears me shout shares in my triumph – and disbelieves the illusion.

But in the rare event that I step into a Phase Door on the suspicion that it is part of an illusory wall, my response is likely to be: "What the HEY?" (Because when you step inside an illusory object, only that object looks unreal, but when you turn ethereal inside a Phase Door, everything you left behind on the Material Plane looks a little unreal until you come back out of the tunnel.) And chances are, no observer will even hear me say that, because no sound escapes from the tunnel to the Material Plane. Indeed, the Phase Door may allow only a one-way trip, so I may not re-emerge at all. And finally, as you point out, Tuggyne, the wall does not turn translucent to anybody after I disappear into it.

I'll concede that I'm making a very minor point, and maybe it's not worth making at all. Or defending... Anyway, it's too late for me to think. Good night, all!

[Fizban]

Disguise Self explicitly doesn't help against touch (and thus, in touching an illusory bit you go right through it, which is proof enough if the thing is supposed to be solid).
Hallucinary Terrain is explictly "look, sound, and smell like" - no touch, touch isn't fooled, so touching that illusory rock tells you immediately that it's false.
Illusory Wall... has already been mentioned, again, no mention of it tricking touch.
Major Image... works like silent image, but adds "sound, smell, and thermal" - again, nothing tactile.
Minor image... works like silent image, but adds (unintelligble) sound. Again, nothing tactile.
Permanent Image... adds "visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements" - still no touch - to Silent Image.
Programmed Image... extends Silent Image, adding "visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal elements, including intelligible speech" - still no touch.
Seeming... acts like disguise self. Touching a part that isn't really there is proof.
Silent Image... is visual only. Can't fool touch, so if you touch it, you break it.

Veil includes touch. So yes, this one could potentially make someone look like something that could stop a person, and convince them not to go forward after touching.

Mirage Arcana is of note in that it includes tactile elements, so yes, that one could potentially stop someone charging.
That's a very useful list there, I could have sworn Major Image included tactile but apparently not. It's good to have all that when talking illusions. As for myself, I think the idea is that any sense the illusion can produce a result for is completely fooled. This means that you can't make a save unless you interact with it using a sense it doesn't cover, though touch is enough for everything but Mirage Arcana and Veil. If you fail the save you believe it's real even though it doesn't match your sensory data and you just think it's weird, at which point even if the player thinks it's an illusion I'll ask for some in character justification. If their character hasn't really dealt with illusions but has dealt with something else that might explain their sensory disconnect, then I'd want them to react appropriately. That said, unless you have something solid under the illusion most will be immediately proven false just by punching it. Illusions that have a tactile response and something solid under them will beat that without a save, but poking it with an item may yield a different enough response to make a save since the item isn't affected by the illusion.

[Jack_Simth]

As for myself, I think the idea is that any sense the illusion can produce a result for is completely fooled. This means that you can't make a save unless you interact with it using a sense it doesn't coverUmm. Where do you get that?

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

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 successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus. (emphasis added)

The saving throw is for when you're using a sense it does cover. When you've got a sense it doesn't cover that applies, you fall under the proof clause. I mean, study it carefully doesn't require touching something. Looking at a wall to try and figure out when it was put up - because there was a hallway there the last time you went through this intersection, say - grants a save, even though Silent Image covers sight.

[Deophaun]

Burden of proof is on you, Deophaun.

You're quoting an entirely different spell, and claiming its verbiage applies to other spells that lack it. Your statement also contradicts the spirit of those spell descriptions.
Ahem...

That doesn't contradict RAW at all. You cannot probe an illusory wall to see if it's real
Yes, very sneaky of me quoting the text for illusory wall when we're talking about illusory wall.

I'm also sorry about not addressing the fact that illusory wall was different than other figments in that regard. I probably should have written something like...


Note, this is more powerful than ordinary figments, as ordinary figments would become translucent outlines at that point, while illusory wall does not.

If only there was some place in RAW that clearly laid out what the save represented. Something that told us the consequences of a failed save.

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

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 successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
We could then see if a character that failed his save either a) believes the illusion was true and has his brain fill in the missing pieces or b) just doesn't know if something is an illusion or not.

[Talya]

Ahem...

Yes, very sneaky of me quoting the text for illusory wall when we're talking about illusory wall.



You can create an illusory wall with the same spell you used to create the illusory troglodytes that are the entire subject of this thread. I am sorry for getting you off track, but we are discussing general illusions, not the illusory wall spell specifically, don't you agree?

No matter. I believe that the same quotes you are showing from the rules appear to indicate that "proof that an illusion is not real" in most cases requires more than simply touching the illusion. Touching the illusion is something that immediately grants a will save. Fail your save, and you saw nothing amiss. I stand by that attempting to just walk through an illusion without having any evidence that it is false requires a will save to disbelieve first. Anything else is metagaming.

[Deophaun]

No matter. I believe that the same quotes you are showing from the rules appear to indicate that "proof that an illusion is not real" in most cases requires more than simply touching the illusion.
Where? What constitutes proof more than "my hand just went through a solid wall?" Remember, if you are presented with proof of an illusion, you do not need a will save at all, so requiring a will save to see the proof of an illusion is against RAW. You also are ignoring where the only thing that happens on a failed save is you fail to notice anything amiss. It does not say you subconsciously act as if the illusion is real, or that any suspicions you have about the wall are laid to rest. These are things you made up.

Anything else is metagaming.
How so? There is a wall here that was not here before. It could be from a wall of stone. It could also be one of a bunch of lower level illusions. I try the odds and run through it. How is that in any way, shape, or form metagaming? If your players have context clues that the wall in front of them isn't real, 99% of the time the characters will have those exact same clues unless you're a DM that says "The enemy wizard casts major image and makes a wall of stone appear in front of you." I would think someone imaginative enough to come up with rules for illusions that do not exist in game would also be imaginative enough to see how easy it is to ignore an illusion without metagaming.

[Duke of Urrel]

There are two difficulties in interpreting the rules for illusions.

One is setting the minimum requirement for "study and interaction." What does an observer have to do in order to be granted a Will save? From how far away can "study and interaction" take place? (I have a house rule for this: a range penalty added to Will saves, which is the same as the one that applies to Spot checks.) In a large crowd, how many observers will get Will saves? Is it really impossible to fool a large crowd with an illusion? (I have a house rule for this, too: the decisive subgroup rule, which I mentioned above.)

Another difficulty is setting the minimum requirement for a demonstration that proves a thing is illusory without the need of a Will save. Sure, if you poke your hand through a wall, you know that it's an illusion, but what about observers who see you do that? For example, how close do they need to be to the demonstrator for the demonstration to be effective? I haven't answered this question entirely. (There may not be a single house rule for this.)

The second question has been an item of controversy on this thread. I am grateful for what this dispute has revealed for me, namely that there is may be something special about the Illusory Wall spell that I never noticed before. There may be a special reason why this spell's description says: "Touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface, though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear."

Up to the word "though," this sentence appears to be a simple reiteration of the general rules for illusions, which appear under "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)." I had always assumed that the "though" clause was also simply a reiteration of these rules, because no illusion "disappears" when you disbelieve it; it simply becomes nearly transparent. In my understanding, disbelievers have "double vision" in regard to illusions. By focusing their eyes, they can either see an illusion's translucent form or look through it, as they wish, but the illusion never disappears altogether.

But maybe there's something special about the Illusory Wall spell. Maybe the description indicates that the ordinary rule for disbelieving visual illusions doesn't apply to it. Maybe to disbelievers, who know that the Illusory Wall is illusory, it still looks just the same. This would have real consequences for demonstration, because if I stuck my hand through an Illusory Wall, I would demonstrate only to myself that it was illusory, but not to anyone else. (Anyone else might very well assume, albeit a little improbably, that I'm poking my hand into a Phase Door!) Is this the correct interpretation of the Illusory Wall spell's description? If so, maybe I have both Talya and Deophaun to thank for this discovery...

[Deophaun]

A tale of two walls created by illusion (as opposed to illusory walls). Both are created from Silent Image.

The first wall is made to appear as stone. Suspicious observer 1 goes up to it and puts his hand through it. Observer 1 has proof that the wall is an illusion, it goes translucent.

The second wall is made to appear as fog. Suspicious observer 2 goes up to it and puts his hand through it. Observer 2 gets a saving throw for interacting with the illusion. But, as fog is not solid and doesn't feel different from regular air, he gets no proof that the wall is an illusion.

This is why you take care in making your illusions.

[Duke of Urrel]

A tale of two walls created by illusion (as opposed to illusory walls). Both are created from Silent Image.

The first wall is made to appear as stone. Suspicious observer 1 goes up to it and puts his hand through it. Observer 1 has proof that the wall is an illusion, it goes translucent.

The second wall is made to appear as fog. Suspicious observer 2 goes up to it and puts his hand through it. Observer 2 gets a saving throw for interacting with the illusion. But, as fog is not solid and doesn't feel different from regular air, he gets no proof that the wall is an illusion.

This is why you take care in making your illusions.

I agree that illusory fog passes the touch test, which cannot demonstrate that it is illusory. But there's another test for illusory fog. As I understand it, every visual illusion, whether it resembles solid rock or translucent fog, is perfectly hollow on the inside. So if you suspect that a thick fog bank is illusory, step inside. If it really is an illusion, you'll see everything clearly, both inside and outside the fog cloud, once you are inside its illusory veil.

Of course, this demonstration works only for you, not for observers outside the illusory fog bank, who see you vanish from view inside it, just as if it were real fog. The best that you can do is call out to those observers, saying, "Hey, this fog is illusory; you can see everything once you're inside it." Everybody who hears this declaration gets to make another Will save at +4.

[awa]

now i always forget the difference between mist and fogs and so on but isn't fog kinda damp and cool you would notice that.

Now an illusion of darkness would work becuase the darkness spell exists and is low level and already cant be seen through normally by most creatures and becuase your party is aware of this trick they can see right through it while the enemy cant prove you did not just cast a spell

edit can you quote something for illusions being hollow i have never heard that before

[Jack_Simth]

now i always forget the difference between mist and fogs and so on but isn't fog kinda damp and cool you would notice that.

Yes, but that one is subtle enough that I could see a DM simply saying that one's an interaction will save.


edit can you quote something for illusions being hollow i have never heard that beforeAgreed. I've never heard of that one either. Rules quote?

[Duke of Urrel]

now i always forget the difference between mist and fogs and so on but isn't fog kinda damp and cool you would notice that.

Now an illusion of darkness would work becuase the darkness spell exists and is low level and already cant be seen through normally by most creatures and becuase your party is aware of this trick they can see right through it while the enemy cant prove you did not just cast a spell

edit can you quote something for illusions being hollow i have never heard that before


Yes, but that one is subtle enough that I could see a DM simply saying that one's an interaction will save.
Agreed. I've never heard of that one either. Rules quote?

I'd better come clean, Jack_Simth. There is no rule that says all visual illusions are hollow on the inside. This is just another one of my many house rules. When I'm the DM, I consider the RAW to be only a small subset of MY rules. But I try not to let my house rules step on the toes of the RAW. This means that whenever I discover new RAW in a thread like this one – and this happens a lot, because they're always inventing new rules – I have to revise my house rules accordingly.

Here's an interesting question, though. If we don't assume that visual illusions are all hollow on the inside, then what do they look like on the inside, then? Let the fluff fight begin!

...Except that this isn't merely fluff. As our investigation has already shown, our purportedly "fluffy" assumptions that go beyond the RAW occasionally have real rule-based consequences. I believe the technical term for this kind of thing is "crunch."

Many thanks to Awa for another mind-bending thought. Illusory darkness! Just imagine it. I've got house rules for illusory light, as a matter of fact. (Don't ask ... this is just a friendly warning!) I have no house rules for illusory darkness... yet. But I have some opinions about this, of course.

Clearly, if you can create visual illusions, you can block out the light and create shadows where there were none before, and in this respect, I think we've all accepted that with visual illusions, we can create illusory darkness that is as effective as real darkness. But can a visual illusion – specifically one of the Figment subschool – create darkness where there is nothing at all blocking the light and therefore no reason for there to be any darkness? To state it provocatively: Can the Silent Image spell duplicate the Darkness spell (provided that you maintain the effect by concentrating)? I would way no. You can create darkness with visual illusions of the Figment subschool only by creating seemingly solid objects that block the light. You can't use a figment to create a dark shadow with nothing there to cast it. I would argue that this kind of power falls under the category of "altering the appearance" of the air itself, which is definite Glamor territory, beyond the power of any spell of the Figment subschool.

I would even argue that the effect of the Darkness spell is beyond the power of any glamor to duplicate, because the Darkness spell is weirdly surreal, a kind of dim light that darkens light, but lightens darkness, and that affects Darkvision as well as human or Low-Light Vision. Illusions are about verisimilitude and naturalism; they can't duplicate supernatural phenomena like the effect of the Darkness spell – unless they are of the Shadow subschool, which is explicitly empowered to do so. Here endeth my opinion!

But I'm not the dungeon master of you all. Everything I have offered here is just a suggestion. You can take it or leave it, as you wish.

[Deophaun]

I'd better come clean, Jack_Simth. There is no rule that says all visual illusions are hollow on the inside. This is just another one of my many house rules.
Well, the simple way around that is to make your illusion a 2D image that you fold in on itself, so you're never inside the illusion, even when you're "inside" the illusion. Illusions have limits on volume, not surface area, after all. Take some ranks of Craft (origami) if you like.

Here's an interesting question, though. If we don't assume that visual illusions are all hollow on the inside, then what do they look like on the inside, then?
Whatever the caster wants them to look like, of course.

Many thanks to Awa for another mind-bending thought. Illusory darkness! Just imagine it.
Ugh, thought about it, and it's the sort of thing that just gets books thrown at you around my table. It is purely the realm of improvisation, as there are no good guidelines on how these things interact with light. So, we have a gentleman's agreement where the players don't try to use illusions in a manner where such questions are vitally important, and I don't send an army of inevitables against them.

[Ytaker]

That doesn't contradict RAW at all. You cannot probe an illusory wall to see if it's real...not without your will save being successful, anyway. That's "interacting" with the illusion. If you push against an illusory wall, now you get your will save. Succeed, and what do you know, your hand goes right through it. Fail, and you think your hand is pushed up against something solid.

That's the purpose of the will save. You're not getting through that wall without succeeding on it.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Illusory_Wall

"Touch or a probing search reveals the true nature of the surface, though such measures do not cause the illusion to disappear. "

You explicitly can.

Unless illusions have a kinaesthetic element they can't influence you kinaesthetically. You get a save if you run through them though. If you succeed on the save you can then see through the illusions and use them say as cover against enemies.

[Fizban]

Umm. Where do you get that?
(emphasis added)

The saving throw is for when you're using a sense it does cover. When you've got a sense it doesn't cover that applies, you fall under the proof clause. I mean, study it carefully doesn't require touching something. Looking at a wall to try and figure out when it was put up - because there was a hallway there the last time you went through this intersection, say - grants a save, even though Silent Image covers sight.

Mostly from some old disguise self example I remember where if they touched you and it didn't match what they saw they'd get a save. That and the fact that the phrase "study carefully" doesn't mean anything, so I chose to interpret it as "study with a sense the illusion isn't made to cover." Interact should be pretty clear as one thing trying to influence or move another, requiring you to do something. "Study carefully" doesn't mean squat, it could be anything: take out a microscope or stare at it for 5 minutes or "well I'm always studying everything carefully as evidenced by how I get a free spot check to notice hidden creatures." It would probably be fair to say that spending a move action on an active spot check instead of a passive one would allow the save, but I don't think that's as good at deterring the old "I disbelieve the air" problem, so I guess I've basically cut it out.

It doesn't help that the "proof it isn't real" clause doesn't mean much either. The only limit to what's real is either what the DM can make (anything), or what the character believes (anything from nothing to completely genre savvy genius wizard), hence why I would have the player justify their actions with character background if they failed a save against "proof." Most of the time passing through an illusion or voiding it with another sense will let you see through it, but if the illusionist knows about you they might be able to pick a ruse that you won't expect to be an illusion even if it doesn't make sense. This could range from the obvious illusion of a ghost to the less obvious illusion of an exotic building material that is a different temperature than normal which you only recognize because you've dealt with it before.

[Jack_Simth]

Mostly from some old disguise self example I remember where if they touched you and it didn't match what they saw they'd get a save.
That's reasonable; someone looks like they're wearing gloves, but when you shake their hand, it's skin. That one I wouldn't consider proof... but if you shake their hand, and it's actually a sharp claw, that I would consider proof.

If, however, you've got two copies of your grandma running around, especially if you know there's likely someone impersonating your grandma, you're going to stop and look at them to try and figure out what's going on. You end up examining them carefully (but yes, what exactly that is isn't defined) and I'd say that really should give you the interaction will save, even though sight is very much a sense that Disguise Self covers.

That and the fact that the phrase "study carefully" doesn't mean anything, so I chose to interpret it as "study with a sense the illusion isn't made to cover."
... OK, so that's your specific choice of interpretation. I find it very strange.

Interact should be pretty clear as one thing trying to influence or move another, requiring you to do something. "Study carefully" doesn't mean squat, it could be anything: take out a microscope or stare at it for 5 minutes or "well I'm always studying everything carefully as evidenced by how I get a free spot check to notice hidden creatures."
There are A LOT of things that the rules don't actually cover (the 'hazardous' interaction between rope trick and a bag of holding, for instance, or maybe what happens when you cast Shrink Item on a suit of full plate that someone is wearing). You wouldn't want to read a rulebook that explicitly and clearly covered everything (and most people probably wouldn't be able to afford to buy that much paper). That's part of the DM's job.

It would probably be fair to say that spending a move action on an active spot check instead of a passive one would allow the save,
Which is something I'd be fine with as a player. Most the time I'll be wanting to study something carefully will be out of combat anyway.

but I don't think that's as good at deterring the old "I disbelieve the air" problem, so I guess I've basically cut it out.
Disbelieving the air is only a problem when you don't consider suffocation effects to be proof that there's no air there.

[Mariania]

Some illusions have thermal components and some have tactile.

If someone were to cast an illusion of lava on the floor with an illusion that has thermal components, it would give off heat, correct? Would that heat be enough to damage characters in contact with it who failed their will saves? Or would they just feel great non-mechanical heat?

If there was a tactile illusion of a hallway over blank wall, what would happen to characters who failed their will saves who attempted to walk down the hall? Would they still hit the wall even though the illusion is tactile? How far could they get before the illusion broke down?

[nedz]

Thread Necromancy

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder uses Turn Undead! It's very effective!