Illusion: Definition of "reveals it to be false"

[Kryx]

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.

DM and players are having a disagreement on what constitutes revealing.

Appropriate definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reveal

to make (something) known
to show (something) plainly or clearly : to make (something that was hidden) able to be seen

Based on that definition:

I believe that the DM must make it explicitly clear that the thing seen is false (By either saying it is an illusion, it is false, it is not real, etc).
DM believes that hinting at it by describing the creature to be translucent and having a blue outline is enough.


I'd appreciate the feedback of other players/DMs what is the appropriate RAW/RAI rule.

[Troacctid]

What if it was an illusion of a glass floor? How would they know it's not safe to walk on? It's already transparent anyway. Would it mean an image of a ghost essentially offers no save, since it's translucent with a glowing outline either way?

[OldTrees1]

IMO
The Will save convinces the PC that the image is an illusion. Merely calling it transparent is insufficient unless that is a clearly recognizable DM to Player signal that the PC now considers the image to be an illusion.

Sidenote: The extra qualifies in my opinion are to include the case of an illusionary illusion or an illusionary illusionary illusion.

[Deophaun]

DM's ruling is reliant on metagame knowledge: a player that does not have mastery of the rules is prevented from understanding his character's experience. Thus, from this perspective, it is a bad ruling.

RAW: it's called "disbelief" for a reason.

[TuggyNE]

DM and players are having a disagreement on what constitutes revealing.

Appropriate definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reveal


Based on that definition:

I believe that the DM must make it explicitly clear that the thing seen is false (By either saying it is an illusion, it is false, it is not real, etc).
DM believes that hinting at it by describing the creature to be translucent and having a blue outline is enough.


I'd appreciate the feedback of other players/DMs what is the appropriate RAW/RAI rule.

Same as any other character perception: the DM has the obligation to correctly and adequately convey whatever the character perceives or experiences to the player in order for them to properly respond. So if you roll a Spot check, pass the (possibly secret) DC, and the DM messes up on describing what you see, that's a failure of communication that the DM needs to fix. Or if you roll an attack, hit the enemy's AC, and the DM unclearly describes what happens so you think you missed or hit an illusion or did no damage or whatever, that is again a failure of communication.

Basically, anything the character knows, the player should know as needed. And it's quite clear that the character knows that it's an illusion, so the player should too.

[kkplx]

Hello there!

I'm the GM in said game and here to provide my reasoning & a link to the actual VoD (timestamps for relevant parts coming, sadly this thing was a little rushed and I couldn't prepare :P)
(yes, I actively chose to do a battle with a LOT of NPCs involved, and was willing to have it drag on for the sake of a proof of concept and diversity, I'll happily talk about that somewhere else, maybe PM, if anyone takes issue with that or anything else not related to the specific issue)

If you watch the VoDs, you will see the argument laid out here escalate into rather regrettable degrees, which left a bad aftertaste in all of our mouths - because of that I'm giving a little bit of meta-information on the particular encounter despite players reading this thread.

(Session Start, the most important (http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524520819))
(Middle Part, irrelevant for the issue but relevant for complete context (http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524528024))
(Rest of Session, includes hint at the nature of the illusion & the soulknife making his save (http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524535904))

Timestamps:
http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524520819?t=18m25s <--- The specific happenings of an old man turning into a gleaming pillar that emits smoke, to then immediately turn into an Aasimar. Including the cleric's interaction with it.
http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524535904?t=55m55s <--- A bodyguard stepping THROUGH the "prophet"'s clothing.
http://www.twitch.tv/chrisguru/b/524535904?t=2h36m35s <--- The Soulblade finally uses one attack on the image, hitting it and getting the same revelation, as well as feedback that his psychic strike didn't go off.


On the topic of Illusions:

During the entire encounter, the only people that interacted with "the prophet" and other effects generated by the major image were a Dwarf Cleric "Rohgen", the Erudite "Tass'lor (who failed each of his 3 will saves) and a lot later the Soulknife "Zariel".

The Major Image had 3 specific manifestations:
An old man with a walking stick.
A brilliant column (in the spot where the old man stood) with silvery smoke billowing out from along the ground.
An Aasimar (replacing the pillar), known as "the prophet" by the fanatic followers.


The cleric interacted with the smoke, made his save and for the rest of the encounter saw the column, the smoke and the "prophet" all as the same translucent blue outline. He never again until the last round of combat made any effort of interacting (physically or otherwise) with the image, which is where he stuck his hand into it, at which point his hand entered the image without resistance. He DID attempt a spellcraft check to identify the spell/effect/illusion, but failed so hard that even the hidden +4 bonus didn't push him over the edge. Later down the line i described to him how a bodyguard seemed to walk straight through part of the "prophet's" clothing, too.
The Erudite hit the image with an AoE, to which it reacted. He failed his will save and never attempted a spellcraft check. He also hit the image with a time hop power, which had no effect (and I even told him that he got a feedback that no valid target had been found), followed by another failed will save.
The Soulknife shot the image with an arrow at a later stage, hit the image, he MADE the save and the "prophet" turned blue translucent for him, the arrow sailed through him, the psychic strike that he activated did NOT go off as I confirmed when he asked, but he didn't share that information either or try a spellcraft check.

Players kept talking about him being ethereal (which at some point i straight up denied because if that were the case he would not be visible), but there was (from my perspective) very little investigating the mystery. The cleric and Soulknife both didn't share their knowledge with party members.


It is my opinion that the quote 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.
does NOT equal me telling a player "this is an illusion" or even the flat statement "this is false" (unless we go into the territory of "RAW is silly" and my erudite has either 11 or 99 UPDs at level 20 and people heal by being drowned). The first would require a spellcraft check, the second simply results in the information that was given - the original image changes into the translucent outline and any additional effects (emulation of smell, sound and temperature) cease to be perceived by the individual. What I absolutely agree with is that my decision of describing the effects of the disbelief instead of a flat "this is an illusion" was reliant on my awareness of metagame knowledge and experience from the players (all of them except the ranger and bard are veterans). Especially the Cleric, a GM himself, used illusions extensively in his own campaign.

What it boils down to from my point of view is that for this particular encounter, the entire misdirection by the image (and a "puppet master" hidden away) was a puzzle/riddle for them to solve during the rather straightforward encounter with commoners/1st level NPCs, and its revelation as an illusion to both the PCs and NPCs could have been used to remove a major factor (the fanatic attitude) of the encounter. A disagreement between what information I was willing to share (under those circumstances and as a result of the investigating the players undertook) and what one player in particular insisted had to be revealed in a RAW (word by word) fashion then led to a second of two unnecessarily aggressive and personal arguments.

Gm's note on a few things with the major image spell: The speech has been taken care with a different spell. So has concentration. It being able to change the "image" is we can gladly discuss per PM ;)

[squiggit]

It is my opinion that this quote from the SRD

does NOT equal me telling a player "this is an illusion" or even the flat statement "this is false".
Even when it outright says a successful save reveals it to be false? That's literally exactly what that quote says. So I'm not sure how you can say you don't think "revealed to be false" means that it's revealed to be false.

This seems really cut and dry. A successful will save means the target disbelieved the image. If you're not telling the player that then you're drifting into DM fiat and homebrew territory, not rules.


the second simply results in the information that was given - the original image changes into the translucent outline.
But given that translucency can mean many things, you're still, by the rules, withholding information they should know by "disbelieving" the illusion.

[kkplx]

But given that translucency can mean many things, you're still, by the rules, withholding information they should know by "disbelieving" the illusion.

Without an appropriate Spellcraft check they, as a character, cannot make the distinction of what this specific translucent outline means, aside from it NOT being what was initially displayed.

would you say that statement is false, and why?

[Deophaun]

Looking at the timestamp, it actually is vague as to what is going on. Rohgen's player has obviously not made the connection that there has, in a instant, been a dramatic change in what his character is seeing. So I remain on the side on clarity.

That said, it doesn't seem like identifying the illusion as an illusion was vital or that there were significant consequences for failure. If this is how the DM wants to play illusions, it's not a terrible introduction to the house rule/local interpretation. Consider yourselves warned for the future.

[The Grue]

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

I've bolded the important part. The presence of a translucent figment does not negate the perception that the illusion is false.

If a player succeeded the saving throw you as the DM must reveal the illusion to be false. Anything else is a failure to communicate the game state to your players.

Now, of course this is subject to Rule Zero and you are by no means required to play by the rules as explicitly written, but at that point, do your players a favor and call it what it is: a house rule. As much as it is well within your purview to alter the rules as you see fit, your players are equally within their rights to call you out on house rules that you haven't made them aware of or agreed to.

[Deophaun]

Watching the video... one of your players apparently has a +16 to his Spellcraft check, and he rolls?

And your players should learn that DCs to identify existing spell effects start at 20, so there's no need to ask if a 17 or a 19 got them anything. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord of Shadows]

Everybody hold up a minute...


A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.

Figment and Phantasm are two descriptors that can appear in a spell from the Illusion School of Magic, along with Glamer, Pattern and Shadow. The quoted passage makes a distinction regarding spells with those descriptors versus any other type of illusion.

Saving against spells that do not have either the Figment or Phantasm descriptor reveals them to be false... period. These include all Illusions with the Glamer, Pattern, and Shadow descriptors.

Saving against spells that have the Figment or Phantasm descriptor reveal them to be the translucent outline effect.

From the SRD again:

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.

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.

So, if saving against an Illusion reveals it to be false, that means that their senses are not deceived, they see things as they are, actually see things that are there, do not hear phantom noises, do not remember things that never happened, etc. Just the opposite of what effect the spell is trying to achieve, with the special exception of Figments and Phantasms, which remain as outlines.
.

[Lord of Shadows]

The Major Image had 3 specific manifestations:

An old man with a walking stick.
A brilliant column (in the spot where the old man stood) with silvery smoke billowing out from along the ground.
An Aasimar (replacing the pillar), known as "the prophet" by the fanatic followers.

That's one heck-of-a Major Image... The spell it is based on, Silent Image, says it "creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force" and Major Image adds "sound, smell, and thermal illusions."

Almost seems like it should be multiple castings that overlapped. Or a custom spell.
.

[kkplx]

That's one heck-of-a Major Image... The spell it is based on, Silent Image, says it "creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force" and Major Image adds "sound, smell, and thermal illusions."

Almost seems like it should be multiple castings that overlapped. Or a custom spell.
.

See spoilers.

[The Grue]

Figment and Phantasm are two descriptors that can appear in a spell from the Illusion School of Magic, along with Glamer, Pattern and Shadow. The quoted passage makes a distinction regarding spells with those descriptors versus any other type of illusion.

Saving against spells that do not have either the Figment or Phantasm descriptor reveals them to be false... period. These include all Illusions with the Glamer, Pattern, and Shadow descriptors.

Saving against spells that have the Figment or Phantasm descriptor reveal them to be the translucent outline effect.

All well and good, except for this:


A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.

How could a character know the floor isn't safe to walk on unless they knew it was illusory? It could simply be a translucent material. The implication here is that, while a character who makes the saving throw is still aware of the appearance and location of a figment or phantasm, they still clearly perceive it to be unreal.

[Lord of Shadows]

See spoilers.

Ahhhh... Ok. I see it even in the part above the spoiler. That makes sense. A delightfully evil (in design, not necessarily alignment) encounter.


misdirection by the image (and a "puppet master" hidden away) [and a] puzzle/riddle for them to solve during the rather straightforward encounter with commoners/1st level NPCs, and its revelation as an illusion to both the PCs and NPCs could have been used to remove a major factor (the fanatic attitude) of the encounter.

Evil masterminds.. gotta love 'em.


A disagreement between what information I was willing to share (under those circumstances and as a result of the investigating the players undertook) and what one player in particular insisted had to be revealed in a RAW (word by word) fashion then led to a second of two unnecessarily aggressive and personal arguments.

I can kind of sympathize with the player, but only for as long as the character is unable to cipher out what is going on. This encounter has multiple "layers," so to speak, and is challenging both to run as a DM and to try to figure out as a player. Sometimes players get caught up in the "I rolled it now tell me everything" trap and fail to allow for things behind the scenes.
.

[Lord of Shadows]

How could a character know the floor isn't safe to walk on unless they knew it was illusory? It could simply be a translucent material. The implication here is that, while a character who makes the saving throw is still aware of the appearance and location of a figment or phantasm, they still clearly perceive it to be unreal.

Yes, if they make the save (or otherwise learn that the floor isn't there) then they know it is false, the only difference is that if it is a Figment or Phantasm, it appears to them as a translucent outline. Illusions that aren't Figments or Phantasms simply don't exist after the save is made.

The floor can be made of whatever... even some translucent material in an attempt to defeat someone saving against the illusion. It doesn't matter since if they save, or otherwise know its fake, they know it's an illusion regardless of what it's made of.

[kkplx]

How could a character know the floor isn't safe to walk on unless they knew it was illusory? It could simply be a translucent material. The implication here is that, while a character who makes the saving throw is still aware of the appearance and location of a figment or phantasm, they still clearly perceive it to be unreal.

The key to this is, as always, circumstance. HOW did the character get his will save in the first place? It is reasonable to assume that he saw something "move through the ground". A pebble he happened to kick up or purposefully threw, a 10 foot pole, his foot or the party rogue may have seemed to disappear through the ground with a following "thump" (or scream...). He investigated and made his save, now seeing through the "ground". Bob the barbarian very well might not think of illusions (or magic altogether, but that's a little more far fetched) as the reason for the occurrence. That's where spellcraft enters. All the barbarian percieves is a translucent floor outline that can't hold his weight where before there seemed to be solid stone.

At least that's the kind of reasoning that led me to handle today's session the way i did.

[kkplx]

Sometimes players get caught up in the "I rolled it now tell me everything" trap and fail to allow for things behind the scenes.

A will save (DC18) to percieve that the "prophet" as portrayed wasn't what he seemed to be.

A spellcraft check (DC23) to identify what was happening as an illusion.

Nobody made the spellcraft check (only 3, the soulknife, the cleric and with sound reasoning the erudite were even entitled to it) due to the players not interacting with each other at all in regards to the "prophet".

[Lord of Shadows]

The key to this is, as always, circumstance. HOW did the character get his will save in the first place? It is reasonable to assume that he saw something "move through the ground". A pebble he happened to kick up or purposefully threw, a 10 foot pole, his foot or the party rogue may have seemed to disappear through the ground with a following "thump" (or scream...). He investigated and made his save, now seeing through the "ground". Bob the barbarian very well might not think of illusions (or magic altogether, but that's a little more far fetched) as the reason for the occurrence. That's where spellcraft enters. All the barbarian percieves is a translucent floor outline that can't hold his weight where before there seemed to be solid stone.

At least that's the kind of reasoning that led me to handle today's session the way i did.

Yes, Illusions are funny that way, and some people hate them just for that reason. You can split hairs all day long, and until the players meet the correct circumstance, things are dodgy. Usually for an Illusion it's as simple as smacking it with a sword or shooting an arrow at it or whatnot. But, as your encounter shows, Illusions can be a tricky thing for players to deal with. I'm not so sure I'd tie a Spellcraft check after making a save to know whether an illusion is real or not. Spellcraft would give insight into what spell is in place (or spells). But that is within your scope of authority as the DM, and with a special set of circumstances such as this, it sounds reasonable for a Barbarian (or any non-caster, really) to think that way about it.

[Lord of Shadows]

A will save (DC18) to percieve that the "prophet" as portrayed wasn't what he seemed to be.

A spellcraft check (DC23) to identify what was happening as an illusion.

Nobody made the spellcraft check (only 3, the soulknife, the cleric and with sound reasoning the erudite were even entitled to it) due to the players not interacting with each other at all in regards to the "prophet".

Wow.... Time to invest in some new dice. :smallcool:

And perhaps try communicating better.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If the character makes the save, he knows that the illusion isn't real. If he doesn't make a spellcraft check, he doesn't necessarily know it's an illusion, but he still knows it isn't real. If this wasn't communicated to the players, then it's a house rule.

Also, don't make riddles that rely on sheer obfuscation. (https://xkcd.com/169/) Plan on your players interacting with the illusion, making the save, and then come up with the tough stuff that they have to figure out.

[The Grue]

The key to this is, as always, circumstance. HOW did the character get his will save in the first place? It is reasonable to assume that he saw something "move through the ground". A pebble he happened to kick up or purposefully threw, a 10 foot pole, his foot or the party rogue may have seemed to disappear through the ground with a following "thump" (or scream...). He investigated and made his save, now seeing through the "ground". Bob the barbarian very well might not think of illusions (or magic altogether, but that's a little more far fetched) as the reason for the occurrence. That's where spellcraft enters. All the barbarian percieves is a translucent floor outline that can't hold his weight where before there seemed to be solid stone.

At least that's the kind of reasoning that led me to handle today's session the way i did.

Except what you seem to be implying is that Bob the Barbarian isn't entirely clear on whether the floor is able to hold his weight or not.

What this is at its core is a communication issue. Rather than communicate to the player that what they were seeing was insubstantial - note I did not say illusory or magical in nature - you chose to obfuscate. As DM it is your responsibility to ensure that you are describing the scene clearly, and part of that is making sure that things a character knows are being communicated to a player. In the case of Bob the Barbarian, that the floor is insubstantial and would not hold his weight. In the case of the OP, well, let's go to your breakdown of the encouter:


The Erudite hit the image with an AoE, to which it reacted. He failed his will save and never attempted a spellcraft check.

A Spellcraft check of this nature should be reactive, like a Spot check. From the SRD now,


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.

Emphasis mine.


The Soulknife shot the image with an arrow at a later stage, hit the image, he MADE the save and the "prophet" turned blue translucent for him, the arrow sailed through him, the psychic strike that he activated did NOT go off as I confirmed when he asked, but he didn't share that information either or try a spellcraft check.

See above. The Spellcraft check here is reactive, and does not require an action.

As I said, what we have here is a communication issue on your part. Firstly in not communicating to players information their characters were consciously aware of, and second by trying to play it like it was the players' fault for not asking the right question. If you've ever played the Hitch-Hiker's Guide text adventure, you'll know how frustrating that attitude can be.

[kkplx]

Yes, Illusions are funny that way, and some people hate them just for that reason. You can split hairs all day long, and until the players meet the correct circumstance, things are dodgy. Usually for an Illusion it's as simple as smacking it with a sword or shooting an arrow at it or whatnot. But, as your encounter shows, Illusions can be a tricky thing for players to deal with. I'm not so sure I'd tie a Spellcraft check after making a save to know whether an illusion is real or not. Spellcraft would give insight into what spell is in place (or spells). But that is within your scope of authority as the DM, and with a special set of circumstances such as this, it sounds reasonable for a Barbarian (or any non-caster, really) to think that way about it.

That's exactly what the spellcraft check would have given them. "This is an illusion, and a major image to be precise."
The will save already revealed the falseness of the prophet, in the only way (that i could come up with as far as description goes) a character would be able to perceive it.

[The Grue]

That's exactly what the spellcraft check would have given them. "This is an illusion, and a major image to be precise."

Which as I pointed out is reactive and does not require conscious action on the player's part.


The will save already revealed the falseness of the prophet, in the only way (that i could come up with as far as description goes) a character would be able to perceive it.

You selectively adhered to one half of the rules while ignoring the other. As written, your description should have included both the translucent, ghostly effect and a clause that stated "You recognize that the image is not actually real" or similar.

Again, your game, play it however you want. But make sure you and your players are on the same page. In this case, some prior warning that "ghostly, translucent blue" means "illusion" - and don't be surprised if your players assume the next ghostly blue thing they see is an illusion, because you've established the precedent that ghostly translucent blue is literally the only cue you will give to indicate if something is illusory.

[kkplx]

Except what you seem to be implying is that Bob the Barbarian isn't entirely clear on whether the floor is able to hold his weight or not.

How would he be? it's a reasonable assumption if the marble passed through, but until he puts his foot through it he doesn't know for sure. (but he's probably pretty sure & cautious that he'd fall)


What this is at its core is a communication issue. Rather than communicate to the player that what they were seeing was insubstantial - note I did not say illusory or magical in nature - you chose to obfuscate. As DM it is your responsibility to ensure that you are describing the scene clearly, and part of that is making sure that things a character knows are being communicated to a player.

The communication issue has been brought up in today's session and while I've taken away from it that I should try (mind you, I'm not a native speaker and DO run into issues of clarity when communicating verbally every so often) to describe things as concise and clear as possible, I must and did ask my players to take some of that weight off my shoulders by asking for clarification if things are unclear. This is a houserule of my campaign, albeit a, up to this day, unwritten one.


In the case of Bob the Barbarian, that the floor is insubstantial and would not hold his weight. In the case of the OP, well, let's go to your breakdown of the encounter:

A Spellcraft check of this nature should be reactive, like a Spot check. From the SRD now,
Emphasis mine.
See above. The Spellcraft check here is reactive, and does not require an action.



I assume you wanted to say a passive check, not reactive? While identifying a spell doesn't consume an action, players usually (in any game i ever played in and in this one as well) have to ask for a Spellcraft check (this would be reactive, which is what the cleric got) and do not get to roll those passively and hidden away by the GM (as your comparison to spot implies). Handling it this way is comparable to how most GMs will choose to ignore multiclassing xp penalties, and I'll admit that, looking it up, by RAW you'd handle spellcraft as a passive thing, which is new to me. I'll discuss how we'll handle that with my players for next session and fix it in a houserule if necessary.

Still the only person eligible for passive spellcraft was the Erudite, who botched ALL THREE SAVES that he got from interacting with it. Only the Cleric (who then failed spellcraft) and the Soulknife ever saw through the Illusion, but kept that knowledge to themselves.



As I said, what we have here is a communication issue on your part. Firstly in not communicating to players information their characters were consciously aware of, and second by trying to play it like it was the players' fault for not asking the right question.

Communication issue yes, but in the quality and clarity of the information given and not in regards to the quantity, which I still feel is equal to what they perceived in character. (passive spellcraft excluded, see above.)

[Andreaz]

Let's all keep it simple, shall we?
-Illusions are resisted as "Roll Will save. Pass = you know the illusion is false", with the addendum that "figments and phantasms are still visible".
This lets you conclude that regardless of what the character knows at the time, once he disbelieves an illusion he knows whatever he's seeing is not real. He doesn't know why or even how, but he knows it's false.
It's like you're in a haunted house and suddenly you realize that gaping maw of the abyss is actually some black cloth covering the wall, and that monster breathing down your neck is really just a strange draft. So even in the case of figments and phantasms the whole thing is still "there", but clearly recognizable as false.

Spellcraft is irrelevant to distinguish a Disbelieved Illusion as such. Spellcraft here is only useful if you want to identify the spell (or that it is an Illusion, as in the magic school). The character might not even know that it is an illusion, but he'll know it's all smoke and mirrors somehow.


So be a good soul and let your players know what they're supposed to know: If they disbelieve an illusion tell them "this is not real" and carry on with the story. It's both the spirit and letter, and avoids discussions like this.

[kkplx]

You selectively adhered to one half of the rules while ignoring the other. As written, your description should have included both the translucent, ghostly effect and a clause that stated "You recognize that the image is not actually real" or similar.
---> bold part would be "false", due to its differentiation from "not real".
...and exactly how said knowledge manifests in the mind of the PC that makes its will save is the source of the entire thread =).

either way, it's 4:45am here and my head hurts, for now I'll do my best to be more specific with how "false" is perceived by the subject in the specific occasion when illusions next come up. Thank you everyone for the arguments, most of them helped me understand better where i was erring =)

[The Grue]

---> bold part would be "false", due to its differentiation from "not real".
...and exactly how said knowledge manifests in the mind of the PC that makes its will save is the source of the entire thread =).

Do you require players to roll Knowledge (Local) to identify humanoid races? Or does an NPC description of an elf just say "He's an elf"?

[squiggit]

Saving against spells that have the Figment or Phantasm descriptor reveal them to be the translucent outline effect.
Yeah, but I'm not sure where you're getting that that negates the previous statement in the description. Yes, there's an outline, but also yes, you know it's false, as that's what happens when you save against an illusion.


Without an appropriate Spellcraft check they, as a character, cannot make the distinction of what this specific translucent outline means
Without spellcraft you can't tell what sort of magic it is or be able to identify the spell.

You will however know that it's not real, as that's wha the will save tells you it does.

[TuggyNE]

A will save (DC18) to percieve that the "prophet" as portrayed wasn't what he seemed to be.

A spellcraft check (DC23) to identify what was happening as an illusion.

The way you ran this, you had a Will save to disbelieve the illusion, and then a Spellcraft check to finish disbelieving the illusion, without which latter check it was impossible to actually effectively recognize the illusion as unreal without metagame guessing*. That's not how the rules work, end of story, period. The Will save, on its own and with absolutely no other investment, luck, player skill, communication, or any other sort of contrivance, is enough to clearly distinguish "this is not real and I don't need to worry about it".

*Which, for whatever reason, the players did not attempt or failed in.

[DarkSonic1337]

The key to this is, as always, circumstance. HOW did the character get his will save in the first place? It is reasonable to assume that he saw something "move through the ground". A pebble he happened to kick up or purposefully threw, a 10 foot pole, his foot or the party rogue may have seemed to disappear through the ground with a following "thump" (or scream...). He investigated and made his save, now seeing through the "ground". Bob the barbarian very well might not think of illusions (or magic altogether, but that's a little more far fetched) as the reason for the occurrence.

If that were the case you should have not offered the character a save in the first place, but that would lead to another discussion about how much proof is needed before a save is offered.

If they make their save then it means the character does not believe it is real. That is simply what the rules say, and although you can change that if you want it's still a houserule.