Illusory damage

[Chronos]

What happens if an illusion appears to cause damage?

Specifically, the spell Major Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorImage.htm) can produce illusions which include thermal aspects (as well as visual, audio, and olfactory). Suppose someone casts a Major Image of a fireball (or of a red dragon using its breath weapon, etc.), with an enemy in the area. This certainly counts as the enemy interacting with the illusion, and so they would get a saving throw to disbelieve it... But let's say that that saving throw fails. In this case, the victim sees the flash of flame, hears the "fwoosh", smells a whiff of bat guano and brimstone, and (importantly) feels a brief intense heat.

What happens next? Does the victim believe they have taken damage? If so, does this imagined damage have any effect? If not, then how is this reconciled with the fact that the victim believes the fireball to have been real?

[jedipotter]

Nothing.

Even if they fail the save....even if they think the illusion is 100% real....

Nothing at all happens.

Major Image is a [Figment], and figments have no effect and can't do any damage.

[Jack_Simth]

Nothing.

Even if they fail the save....even if they think the illusion is 100% real....

Nothing at all happens.

Major Image is a [Figment], and figments have no effect and can't do any damage.
Fully correct, and spelled out in The Figment Subschool description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment):
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.

[JellyPooga]

Whilst it is correct that the spell does absolutely nothing mechanically in such cases, the GM is well within his prerogative to make the recipient believe he's taken damage (or whatever). It is, rather, the point of any illusion to deceive. Someone under the deception that they've been blasted with flame might stop, drop and roll to try and put out the "flames", someone under the illusion that a bottomless pit just opened under their feet might scream and flail around trying to grab hold of something to arrest their fall and someone faced with an imaginary minotaur might try to stab it in the face. Belief is a powerful thing and any GM worth his salt should milk it for all he's got.

[nedz]

You need to use Illusion(Shadow) spells for this.
E.g. Shadow Evocation

[JellyPooga]

You need to use Illusion(Shadow) spells for this.
E.g. Shadow Evocation

If you want to do actual damage, sure. Illusory damage from a figment spell can still be taken. You can even roll dice for it, if you like. It just has the effect of making the recipient think he's taken that damage; someone under the impression that he's on the brink of death may well retreat or surrender, even though he's perfectly fine.

Illusions are a tricky one and there's a reason that many rulebooks go to great lengths to try and explain just how they work in their particular rules-set. Having said that, at the end of the day, the actual effects of any given illusion of this kind are down to the player/GM in question because it comes down to what the character believes rather than the effects he's actually under.

[Chronos]

No, I don't need to use shadow spells. I understand how they work, and so they're not relevant for this thread. The point of this thread is that a spellcaster can produce a figment, non-shadow illusion of a fireball, and it's possible for an enemy to believe that that fireball is real. If the spellcaster does cast such an illusion, and the victim believes it, what happens? The answer to that question is not "Use a different spell".

And the rules are clear that a figment can't actually cause damage. But can they cause someone to believe they have taken damage? Making people believe things that aren't true is rather the point of illusions, after all.

[JellyPooga]

But can they cause someone to believe they have taken damage?

Yes. Absolutely. The recipient of the illusory damage should react appropriately, assuming they fail their save.

[Jack_Simth]

If you want to do actual damage, sure. Illusory damage from a figment spell can still be taken. You can even roll dice for it, if you like. It just has the effect of making the recipient think he's taken that damage; someone under the impression that he's on the brink of death may well retreat or surrender, even though he's perfectly fine.

Illusions are a tricky one and there's a reason that many rulebooks go to great lengths to try and explain just how they work in their particular rules-set. Having said that, at the end of the day, the actual effects of any given illusion of this kind are down to the player/GM in question because it comes down to what the character believes rather than the effects he's actually under.

Yes. Absolutely. The recipient of the illusory damage should react appropriately, assuming they fail their save.
Then what you're looking for is in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrowsandIllusionsDisb elief) as well:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

I'd argue that if your hand still feels just fine after an illusion of an axe pretends to cut it off, you don't need the saving throw (although your allies might think you're hurt - of course, you'll need an effect that 'sticks' to a creature be able to do that). In order to trick someone about damage to them, at an absolute minimum you'd need to use something that also tricks touch (the vast majority do not). The target may feel a brief woosh of heat, but they're going to go "that didn't have any bite to it" or similar, note their flesh and clothing isn't burned, note that the surrounding terrain isn't disturbed, et cetera (unless you're adding other spells into the mix with readied actions, such as perhaps Veil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/veil.htm) - which explicitly does deludes touch - or an actual fireball spell).

[jedipotter]

Whilst it is correct that the spell does absolutely nothing mechanically in such cases, the GM is well within his prerogative to make the recipient believe he's taken damage (or whatever). It is, rather, the point of any illusion to deceive. Someone under the deception that they've been blasted with flame might stop, drop and roll to try and put out the "flames", someone under the illusion that a bottomless pit just opened under their feet might scream and flail around trying to grab hold of something to arrest their fall and someone faced with an imaginary minotaur might try to stab it in the face. Belief is a powerful thing and any GM worth his salt should milk it for all he's got.

Only if your GM is running smoe type of Homebrew Game and not using the rules. Figments do nothing. They have no in game effect. You can't ''make someone think'' they are falling in a pit and get an AoO on them. You can't ''make someone think they are on fire'' and have then drop and roll and not make an attack. A Figment can't do that. Figments can only have non-mechnical effects. You can make an illusion of a big boulder in front of a door that might make someone just move on, but that is all.


You need to use the other types of Illusion spells to make someone ''belive'' anything....

[JellyPooga]

You need to use the other types of Illusion spells to make someone ''belive'' anything....

Whilst the spell cannot force an effect, a player or GM who is playing a character, rather than a set of stats would have their character react appropriately, potentially causing themselves harm or what-have-you. A figment does exactly what you say is doesn't; it makes someone believe something that is untrue.

If your GM says to you "you're character is on fire", then even though you, the player, know it's an illusion, a mere figment, your character is going to do something about it. It might just be to grit his teeth as carry on regardless, if he's a rough, tough kinda dude, or it might be to stop and drop to put out those flames.

The figment spells are "Duration: Concentration" (or thereabouts) and can be manipulated by the illusionist. Major Image, specifically, could give the impression that someone is on fire as it includes thermal and visual illusions; if your hand feels like it's on fire and looks like it's on fire, are you really going to take the time to analyse the facts to determine whether you're on fire or not? That's covered by the Will save, so if you fail the Will save, you're character is going to straight up scream in pain and plunge said hand into the nearest bucket of water (which then might constitute proof that the fire is illusory should it continue to give the same output and thus be dispelled)

[Jack_Simth]

Whilst the spell cannot force an effect, a player or GM who is playing a character, rather than a set of stats would have their character react appropriately, potentially causing themselves harm or what-have-you. A figment does exactly what you say is doesn't; it makes someone believe something that is untrue.

If your GM says to you "you're character is on fire", then even though you, the player, know it's an illusion, a mere figment, your character is going to do something about it. It might just be to grit his teeth as carry on regardless, if he's a rough, tough kinda dude, or it might be to stop and drop to put out those flames.

The figment spells are "Duration: Concentration" (or thereabouts) and can be manipulated by the illusionist. Major Image, specifically, could give the impression that someone is on fire as it includes thermal and visual illusions; if your hand feels like it's on fire and looks like it's on fire, are you really going to take the time to analyse the facts to determine whether you're on fire or not? That's covered by the Will save, so if you fail the Will save, you're character is going to straight up scream in pain and plunge said hand into the nearest bucket of water (which then might constitute proof that the fire is illusory should it continue to give the same output and thus be dispelled)No, at best he gets heat but no pain (different receptors), same as if you'd cast Weapon of Energy(Fire) on a Monk.

[squiggit]

You need to use the other types of Illusion spells to make someone ''belive'' anything....
Er, no you don't. All you need to do is make sure they fail their save. That's how illusions work.

[JellyPooga]

No, at best he gets heat but no pain (different receptors), same as if you'd cast Weapon of Energy(Fire) on a Monk.

Huh? You have an illusion of searing heat; it looks, feels and even smells like you're flesh and clothes are burning and you're telling me that, although you believe utterly that you are, in fact, on fire you're not going to react? At all? We're not talking about a magical effect that gives you flaming fists, we're discussing a deception of the senses to make someone think they're actually on fire. I'll say it again; who's going to stop and consider the difference between pain and extreme heat when almost every sense they have is telling them that they're engulfed in flame?

You don't get a save to disbelieve an illusion of a Wall of Fire (assuming such things exist in your campaign) until you walk up to it and touch it. Fail that save and you flinch away because you think it's too hot. Walk through it regardless and you'll auto-pass the save unless the illusionist is there and alters the illusion to give you the impression that the flame has affected you. If he does alter the illusion, then you'll still be under the impression that you've just walked through a wall of fire. Sure, you get a Will save to disbelieve, but it won't be an auto-pass.

[Jack_Simth]

Huh? You have an illusion of searing heat; it looks, feels and even smells like you're flesh and clothes are burning and you're telling me that, although you believe utterly that you are, in fact, on fire you're not going to react? At all? We're not talking about a magical effect that gives you flaming fists, we're discussing a deception of the senses to make someone think they're actually on fire. I'll say it again; who's going to stop and consider the difference between pain and extreme heat when almost every sense they have is telling them that they're engulfed in flame?

You don't get a save to disbelieve an illusion of a Wall of Fire (assuming such things exist in your campaign) until you walk up to it and touch it. Fail that save and you flinch away because you think it's too hot. Walk through it regardless and you'll auto-pass the save unless the illusionist is there and alters the illusion to give you the impression that the flame has affected you. If he does alter the illusion, then you'll still be under the impression that you've just walked through a wall of fire. Sure, you get a Will save to disbelieve, but it won't be an auto-pass.

Pain and heat are separate senses. I've been burned before. Your heat sense acts as a warning, but it caps out at a point - shortly before you start taking injury - and pain starts in past a point - also shortly before you start taking injury. Oh yes, and if you get burned past a point? It produces little to no sensation (and yes, I've been there, too). Oh, also: "Figments (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment) cannot make something seem to be something else" - that requires a Glamer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#glamer). If you're using just a figment, the illusionist can't make it seem to have affected you.

So yes, auto-pass.

Granted, illusions are one of the most rules-lite segments of D&D, so your milage will vary rather widely by DM.

[JellyPooga]

Pain and heat are separate senses. I've been burned before.

I'll concede that on my own lack of experience, but will note that not everyone has (been burned, that is) and may not realise the difference between a high heat and actual pain and treat is as one and the same, especially if other sensory input confirms it (much like a food dish can taste better or worse based on how it looks, feels and smells).


Figments (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment) cannot make something seem to be something else" - that requires a Glamer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#glamer). If you're using just a figment, the illusionist can't make it seem to have affected you.

This one is open to debate. Whilst you could not make it seem like your flesh is burning from your bones with a figment, a clever illusionist would be able to give the impression of being wreathed in flame, which would likely produce the same kind of results (distraction, panic, etc.)


Granted, illusions are one of the most rules-lite segments of D&D, so your milage will vary rather widely by DM.

It's funny; Illusions probably have more definition and qualification than any other type of spell, yet because of their open ended nature are infinitely more open to interpretation than any other.

[jedipotter]

This one is open to debate. Whilst you could not make it seem like your flesh is burning from your bones with a figment, a clever illusionist would be able to give the impression of being wreathed in flame, which would likely produce the same kind of results (distraction, panic, etc.).

To be clear, an illusion spell can have that result, but a figment tpye illusion spell can not. Ever.

Figments, like major image are powerful as you can make an image of anything. But the price is: the image has no game effect what so ever. If you had a illusion spell ''wreathed in flames'' it would be an [Phansasm] type illusion spell(and have set, targets, duration, effects and so forth.)




It's funny; Illusions probably have more definition and qualification than any other type of spell, yet because of their open ended nature are infinitely more open to interpretation than any other.

Not really. Not in 3.5E or Pathfinder. Your thinking of 1 or 2E.

[nedz]

The only way, barring house-rules, to get a Figment to do damage is to do something like:
Create a Silent Image of a bridge over a (real) chasm, and then persuade someone to run across it.
The damage here would be of the falling type.

This said Illusions are very much down to Rule 0 in that different DMs run them very differently.

[maysarahs]

I think you should read the "All about Illusions" (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a) article on the Wizards of the Coast site. I have linked page 3 in order to note the section on automatic disbelief.

I think that an illusion will fail the moment it fails a comparison to reality. A major image can succeed in looking, smelling, and giving off a vague warmth of a fire, (properties that are producible according to the spell) but the moment it needs to be compared to fire in its damaging capabilities, it automatically fails. Further, anyone who would perceive such a property (they expect the hurt (hurt = damage) but don't feel it when touching an ember) automatically sees through the illusion.

[Slipperychicken]

The same thing that happens when you're wearing 3D glasses at a movie, and a CGI javelin seems to fly at your face: Nothing. It's not real, so it doesn't hurt you. You don't fall unconscious from watching a movie (unless it's a chick flick, but I digress).

Seriously, this isn't hard.

[Anlashok]

The same thing that happens when you're wearing 3D glasses at a movie, and a CGI javelin seems to fly at your face
Sort of a weak comparison because 3D effects at a movie don't also smell and feel like the real thing, whereas illusory fire created by Major Image both smells like fire and feels hot to touch.

[Slipperychicken]

Sort of a weak comparison because 3D effects at a movie don't also smell and feel like the real thing, whereas illusory fire created by Major Image both smells like fire and feels hot to touch.

It still doesn't hurt you.

[Deophaun]

Yes. Absolutely. The recipient of the illusory damage should react appropriately, assuming they fail their save.
Show me the [Mind-Affecting] tag on a figment.

[Anlashok]

It still doesn't hurt you.

I never said it did.

[JellyPooga]

Show me the [Mind-Affecting] tag on a figment.

It doesn't have to have the [mind-affecting] tag. The belief of a figment stems from sensory input. You believe what your senses tell you, right? Something with the [mind-affecting] tag bypasses sensory input altogether and skips straight to the belief bit. A figment creates false sensory input, which the mind can then interpret as it will. Pass your save and your mind tells you that your senses are lying. Fail your save and you believe what your senses are telling you. If your senses are telling you that there's a honking great ball of fire hurtling towards you and you believe it (because balls of fire are a thing you know to exist), then you're going to try and dive out of its path (that or take it on the chest like a man, but even then you're probably going to brace for the impact).


Figments, like major image are powerful as you can make an image of anything. But the price is: the image has no game effect what so ever.

No forced game effect, no. I have never argued that. The reaction of a given character to a given stimulus, however, is something else entirely. If the GM says to a player "there's a goblin standing in front of you", that player can choose to talk to it, stab it, run away or whatever, regardless of whether that goblin is real or illusory. Similarly, the GM says to a player "a cloud of fire surrounds you, the heat is intense and you think you can smell the acrid smoke of your own hair burning" and that player can then choose to do as he pleases. If he metagames the scenario and says "yeah, I just failed a Will save, so I do nothing; it's obviously an illusion", then he's not roleplaying. On the other hand, he could choose to man it out and risk the damage by diving through it, whereupon he may come to the conclusion that it's an illusion (the auto-pass scenario), or he might panic and run or curl into a ball and weep or whatever other appropriate response to being engulfed in a cloud of fire might be.

Failing that Will save represents a characters mind believing what that characters senses are telling him. Reacting inappropriately to such a scenario would garner a withering gaze and a raised eyebrow (and likely something much more lethal the next time round), at the very least, were I GMing such a scenario.

[Jack_Simth]

I'll concede that on my own lack of experience, but will note that not everyone has (been burned, that is) and may not realise the difference between a high heat and actual pain and treat is as one and the same, especially if other sensory input confirms it (much like a food dish can taste better or worse based on how it looks, feels and smells).
Thing is, I know about getting burned primarily through camping (I was in scouts when I was younger). Thing is, people who regularly work with hot stuff will eventually get burned. Sure, the merchant-prince who has all his meals cooked for him might not get the distinction, but that tribal goblin who cooks his prey over a fire every night? He'll know. It's pretty much only highly civilized areas - and even then, only the people who regularly purchase their food already mostly prepared - who won't get it.

This one is open to debate. Whilst you could not make it seem like your flesh is burning from your bones with a figment, a clever illusionist would be able to give the impression of being wreathed in flame, which would likely produce the same kind of results (distraction, panic, etc.)
Perhaps for the people next to the target, sure. Until they see your mark seems completely unharmed (isn't screaming in pain, for instance) because the critter isn't taking any injury.
It's funny; Illusions probably have more definition and qualification than any other type of spell, yet because of their open ended nature are infinitely more open to interpretation than any other.
Language issue... when I refer to something as rules-lite, I generally mean 'open ended'. Magic Missile is not rules-lite, despite having a shorter description than Silent Image. Why? Magic Missile has a very sharply defined game effect - creatures only, flat damage, et cetera. Silent image? Not so much.


No forced game effect, no. I have never argued that. The reaction of a given character to a given stimulus, however, is something else entirely. If the GM says to a player "there's a goblin standing in front of you", that player can choose to talk to it, stab it, run away or whatever, regardless of whether that goblin is real or illusory. Similarly, the GM says to a player "a cloud of fire surrounds you, the heat is intense and you think you can smell the acrid smoke of your own hair burning" and that player can then choose to do as he pleases. If he metagames the scenario and says "yeah, I just failed a Will save, so I do nothing; it's obviously an illusion", then he's not roleplaying. On the other hand, he could choose to man it out and risk the damage by diving through it, whereupon he may come to the conclusion that it's an illusion (the auto-pass scenario), or he might panic and run or curl into a ball and weep or whatever other appropriate response to being engulfed in a cloud of fire might be.

Failing that Will save represents a characters mind believing what that characters senses are telling him. Reacting inappropriately to such a scenario would garner a withering gaze and a raised eyebrow (and likely something much more lethal the next time round), at the very least, were I GMing such a scenario.

Putting it in front of the target this is true. As soon as the target makes non-damaging contact with something that should really be damaging, however, the target immediately knows the illusion. So you put the fake Incendiary Cloud in the space just in front of the mark so your target doesn't go in. That's fine. No auto-save, but the critter will get an interaction save because you're extending the effect (heat, smell) to touch your target, and if the mark fails the save, sure, the critter may want to go around. A lot of D&D heroes will charge in anyway (because they've been burned before and survived), but that's irrespective of whether it's real or not. Put it on top of the target, however, and the critter makes non-damaging contact with something that really should be damaging, and your mark immediately knows the illusion.

[Deophaun]

It doesn't have to have the [mind-affecting] tag. The belief of a figment stems from sensory input. You believe what your senses tell you, right? Something with the [mind-affecting] tag bypasses sensory input altogether and skips straight to the belief bit. A figment creates false sensory input, which the mind can then interpret as it will. Pass your save and your mind tells you that your senses are lying. Fail your save and you believe what your senses are telling you. If your senses are telling you that there's a honking great ball of fire hurtling towards you and you believe it (because balls of fire are a thing you know to exist), then you're going to try and dive out of its path (that or take it on the chest like a man, but even then you're probably going to brace for the impact).
Yes, but you aren't going to take any damage from it. If you believe an illusory wall is real, and you lean on it, you are going to fall through. If you believe an illusory ogre has just swung a club at you, you might flinch, but once it hits you, this happens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68yRIE9OvQ#t=1m7s).

[JellyPooga]

Yes, but you aren't going to take any damage from it. If you believe an illusory wall is real, and you lean on it, you are going to fall through. If you believe an illusory ogre has just swung a club at you, you might flinch, but once it hits you, this happens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68yRIE9OvQ#t=1m7s).

No, you won't take damage and I've not argued anything else. Only that a character should react to figments as if they were real, which might include flinching, forgoing attacks and any number of other in-game effects which aren't forced upon you, but a voluntary (from the Players point of view) inhibition.

[Chronos]

Even "the victim will react as though they've taken damage" isn't completely clear. A creature that (in its mind) has been reduced from full health to almost dead might decide to retreat, but what if the creature was already injured, and the damage (if it were real) would be enough to kill it? Does it faint? Does it think "Wow, that should have killed me... I don't know why it didn't"?

Amazingly, this was one area where second edition had much clearer and more explicit rules. Third, though, just doesn't say anything about it.

[Deophaun]

No, you won't take damage and I've not argued anything else.
You've argued that they will think they have taken damage. They won't. Not even "illusory damage," whatever the heck that is, because the figment category states "They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures." Note: there is no qualification there. It's not limited to fire damage, or cold damage, or "real" damage. It cannot do damage, period.

So set someone on illusory fire. The thermal parameters cannot be hot or cold enough to hinder the target in any way ("useless for attacking them directly").

[Chronos]

Figments cannot create solid walls, but they can make people think there's a solid wall there. Figments cannot create creatures, but they can make people think there's a creature there. What's wrong with saying that figments cannot deal real damage, but that they can make people think they've taken damage?

[Curmudgeon]

It doesn't have to have the [mind-affecting] tag. The belief of a figment stems from sensory input. You believe what your senses tell you, right?
Wrong, actually. The [Mind-Affecting] tag works so that you will believe contradictory senses. Otherwise, you'll believe what matters. An image of a fireball accompanied by only faint heat and no pain means you'll believe that you were mistaken about how intense the effect was based on its appearance; what matters is the result (no injury).

[Chronos]

Why would you make your illusion only have faint heat? Do visual illusions only have faded colors? If it feels as hot as a genuine fireball, why wouldn't you believe it? And even granted that there's a chance you won't believe it, isn't that what the disbelief save represents?

[Curmudgeon]

Why would you make your illusion only have faint heat?
That's all you can produce with a Figment; the thermal effect isn't allowed to be real enough to cause pain. (Pick some different term than "faint" if you prefer, as long as it's consistent with the constraint that the heat isn't real.)

[Deophaun]

Why would you make your illusion only have faint heat?
It can't deal damage, so it can't be as hot as a fire. It's that simple. In other words: it will never feel as hot as a fireball.

Plus, other spells establish that pain has physical effects (like symbol of pain), and yet figments are specifically called out as being useless for direct attacks.

And even granted that there's a chance you won't believe it, isn't that what the disbelief save represents?
You're moving from chance to proof. Once you hit proof, there's no save needed. A fireball streaks towards you, explodes, and nothing is even singed? Well, now you're Marty McFly after the Jaws hologram attacks; you feel a bit silly having almost wet yourself, nothing more.

[JellyPooga]

It can't deal damage, so it can't be as hot as a fire. It's that simple. In other words: it will never feel as hot as a fireball.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I'm not convinced that there's any rule saying that figments have to be anything less than perceived as real to those that fail their Will save. Fire is hot. Heat hurts. Figments might not be able to cause damage, but it's not true that something that causes pain must cause damage (or vice versa). It's why there is a Will save. There has to be absolutely solid proof to auto-pass the save, like leaning on the illusory wall and falling straight through it.

Illusory fire might not cause damage, but a well manipulated illusion of fire could deceive someone into thinking they are on fire. An instantaneous illusory fireball might cause someone to flinch and then laugh at themselves for looking like an idiot for flinching, but a well crafted illusion of ongoing fire is a different matter. They may realise that their hair isn't really burning, but they can smell burning hair. They might realise that their clothes aren't actually burning, but there's tatters and ash swirling around them. It might not cripple them with pain, but it's still really hot. Pass a Will save and you make those realisations. Fail it and you convince yourself that you're on fire. In the confusion of flame and ash, it takes a strong mind to stop and consider the facts; a rough, tough adventurer who deals with dragon breath every day might routinely shrug off such illusions, but a child or cowardly merchant would likely panic at the experience, even though they're taking no damage.

[One Step Two]

Just a reminder that Figments get an auto-disbelief if you disprove it.

Straight from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment):

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

A better example is an illusionary wall hiding a hallway.
If you're walking past the wall without taking any significant notice, you're not interacting, you don't get a saving throw.
If you're making a search check along that wall, say searching for secret doors, you get a will save to disbelieve.
If something bullrushes you through the wall, you realize immediately that it's an illusion, as you're on the other side of it, not mashed against it.

With a Figment of a Fireball, it looks real to onlookers perhaps, but anyone hit by it automatically knows it is fake.

The real question though, is if you're an illusionist using Chains of Disbelief (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#chainsofDisbelief), and enemies still fail their saving throw at +10, vs figment fireball, what happens then?

[Deophaun]

The real question though, is if you're an illusionist using Chains of Disbelief (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#chainsofDisbelief), and enemies still fail their saving throw at +10, vs figment fireball, what happens then?
Since the saving throw is only necessary " to see objects or creatures that the illusion obscures," and the fireball effect that the illusion is mimicking is instantaneous, then you don't need to bother.

[Hubert]

It can't deal damage, so it can't be as hot as a fire.

If it is real heat, then of course it cannot be hot enough to cause damage, as that would be contrary to the rules. But if it is illusory heat, it could be as hot as you want without causing any damage, IMHO.

[Chronos]

It can't deal damage, so it can't be as hot as a fire. It's that simple. In other words: it will never feel as hot as a fireball.
Of course it can't be as hot as a fire. It can't be as hot as anything: It doesn't exist, and doesn't have a temperature. But it feels like it has a temperature, and there's nothing in the spell or school description that puts any limit on what temperature it can feel like, just like there's no limit given on how bright colors can appear.

[Deophaun]

But if it is illusory heat, it could be as hot as you want without causing any damage, IMHO.
How, exactly does that work when pain is used to deal damage and inflict status effects? "This fire feels really, really hot, like surface of the sun hot. However, it's quite bearable and doesn't hurt you in the least; maybe soothing, even." You've entered a realm that is so divorced from reality that it's proof that the effect is an illusion.

[Esgath]

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I'm not convinced that there's any rule saying that figments have to be anything less than perceived as real to those that fail their Will save. Fire is hot. Heat hurts. Figments might not be able to cause damage, but it's not true that something that causes pain must cause damage (or vice versa). It's why there is a Will save. There has to be absolutely solid proof to auto-pass the save, like leaning on the illusory wall and falling straight through it.



You are trying to use a spell in a form that is not suitable for the spell. Figments don't do anything direct on your opposition. Attacking someone with a figment illusion is just a dumb move, because it doesn't do anything to them.

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.
Pain is a real effect, figments can't produce such a thing.

[Thorvaldr]

I wouldn't say that pain is used to deal damage... I've gotten paper cuts that hurt like the dickens, and I've hit my foot with a hatchet before and hadn't even realized I cut myself until I saw all of the blood.

For feeling the heat, if you get very strong hot sauce on your hands, or are cutting a habanero without gloves, it can burn like hell. It's not real damage, my HP doesn't take a hit by any means, but it sure burns a whole lot. I could see an illusionary fireball burning the same way, at least for the duration of the spell.

[Spuddles]

Yes. Absolutely. The recipient of the illusory damage should react appropriately, assuming they fail their save.

Like how, though.

How much does an illusory fireball do of illusory damage.

Maybe I should make an illusion of a twinned repeated maximized intensified energy admixtured searing empowered fell fireball cast at CL30.


Whilst the spell cannot force an effect, a player or GM who is playing a character, rather than a set of stats would have their character react appropriately, potentially causing themselves harm or what-have-you. A figment does exactly what you say is doesn't; it makes someone believe something that is untrue.

If your GM says to you "you're character is on fire", then even though you, the player, know it's an illusion, a mere figment, your character is going to do something about it. It might just be to grit his teeth as carry on regardless, if he's a rough, tough kinda dude, or it might be to stop and drop to put out those flames.

The figment spells are "Duration: Concentration" (or thereabouts) and can be manipulated by the illusionist. Major Image, specifically, could give the impression that someone is on fire as it includes thermal and visual illusions; if your hand feels like it's on fire and looks like it's on fire, are you really going to take the time to analyse the facts to determine whether you're on fire or not? That's covered by the Will save, so if you fail the Will save, you're character is going to straight up scream in pain and plunge said hand into the nearest bucket of water (which then might constitute proof that the fire is illusory should it continue to give the same output and thus be dispelled)

Being on fire is 1d6round damage. By the time youre facing major illusions, losing an action to roll around like an idiot is a waste of time and will get you killed.

[Duke of Urrel]

I wouldn't say that pain is used to deal damage... I've gotten paper cuts that hurt like the dickens, and I've hit my foot with a hatchet before and hadn't even realized I cut myself until I saw all of the blood.

For feeling the heat, if you get very strong hot sauce on your hands, or are cutting a habanero without gloves, it can burn like hell. It's not real damage, my HP doesn't take a hit by any means, but it sure burns a whole lot. I could see an illusionary fireball burning the same way, at least for the duration of the spell.

I disagree that you can feel pain without suffering any damage. Mild discomfort, maybe, but not pain. As long as your nerves aren't malfunctioning, pain is always the result of damage. This is the strongest argument we can offer against the claim that illusory heat or cold, neither of which can do any harm, nonetheless can make you feel pain. Pain isn't the feeling of the thing that damages you. It is the feeling of having been damaged.

This is true even when hot sauce burns your tongue – the chemical capsaicin actually does some mild damage to your tongue cells. And remember that the tongue is a highly sensitive organ. Your fingertips are also highly sensitive, with highly concentrated nerve endings there, which explains why papercuts hurt so much. A hatchet cut in your foot, in contrast, affects a less sensitive part of your body, and the shock of the injury may actually neutralize the pain somewhat.

If something can't damage you, I believe it can't cause pain, either, unless it does so by magic, in which case everything we know about physics and biology flies out the window. Yes, the Major Image spell is magic – but nothing in the description of the Major Image spell suggests that it causes pain. On the contrary, all the rules say explicitly is that like any other Figment spell, the Major Image spell can't damage you in any way. It can make you feel hot or cold, yes, but it can't make you feel pain, because pain is the feeling of being damaged by heat or cold, and no mere figment can achieve this.

[JellyPooga]

Being on fire is 1d6round damage. By the time youre facing major illusions, losing an action to roll around like an idiot is a waste of time and will get you killed.

And this sort of response is the kind of metagaming that garners the withering scorn I previously mentioned. The game might tell you that fire does 1d6/round and to a 7th level Barbarian, that's an insignificant enough rate to ignore, sure enough. On the other hand, any player in my game that just ignores being on fire (illusory or otherwise) because the game doesn't tell you that you have to react in a certain way is going to suffer a severe case of rulebook to the face! Heck, I'm not saying you have to react in a certain way, negative or otherwise, just that you acknowledge it appropriately; a Barbarian could shrug it off with a roar, a Bard might panic over his hairdo being ruined, or whatever.

An illusory "twinned repeated maximized intensified energy admixtured searing empowered fell fireball cast at CL30" is likely to be a terrifying thing to behold, even more so if the character targeted knows exactly what such a thing might be capable of. A Wizard who doesn't recognise it for an illusion that doesn't run screaming like a girl, or perhaps cast an immediate action defensive buff to protect himself from it or otherwise do what he would against a real one is playing the metagame, not a roleplaying game and has no place at my table. A figment can't do damage, but it can make you think it might, or even has; that's all I'm saying.

[jedipotter]

A figment can't do damage, but it can make you think it might, or even has; that's all I'm saying.

First you might want to note that real damage does not have any secondary effects. If a character is set on fire for real there is nothing in the rules about them dropping things, being distracted or having the pain cause them to loose an action. A dwarf hit point blank by a frieball, just takes damage, he does not ''roll on the ground and give a foe a free attack''. If an elf touches a wall of fire, they take damage, but they don't fall down and be helpless from the pain.

In fact, D&D does not really even have rules for pain. Your hit and take damage, there is no ''pain''. Pain is mostly flavor text. And effect might ''cause great pain'', but it does nothing to effect the character other then the ''-2 to dexterity rolls''.

So, again, a figment type illusion can have no game effect. It can only have a role-playing effect. For example if you jump onto and illusionary (figment) boat, you will have simply jumped into the water.


Illusionary phantasm spells are the ones your talking about. They create illusions in a targets mind and have real effects. But they are not the type of illusions that everyone can see and hear and such.

[JellyPooga]

So, again, a figment type illusion can have no game effect. It can only have a role-playing effect.

That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.

[Spuddles]

And this sort of response is the kind of metagaming that garners the withering scorn I previously mentioned. The game might tell you that fire does 1d6/round and to a 7th level Barbarian, that's an insignificant enough rate to ignore, sure enough. On the other hand, any player in my game that just ignores being on fire (illusory or otherwise) because the game doesn't tell you that you have to react in a certain way is going to suffer a severe case of rulebook to the face! Heck, I'm not saying you have to react in a certain way, negative or otherwise, just that you acknowledge it appropriately; a Barbarian could shrug it off with a roar, a Bard might panic over his hairdo being ruined, or whatever.

An illusory "twinned repeated maximized intensified energy admixtured searing empowered fell fireball cast at CL30" is likely to be a terrifying thing to behold, even more so if the character targeted knows exactly what such a thing might be capable of. A Wizard who doesn't recognise it for an illusion that doesn't run screaming like a girl, or perhaps cast an immediate action defensive buff to protect himself from it or otherwise do what he would against a real one is playing the metagame, not a roleplaying game and has no place at my table. A figment can't do damage, but it can make you think it might, or even has; that's all I'm saying.

Unless you houserule being on fire to be more damage, it does 1d6 fire damage per round. Anyone with sufficient HP will just ignore it, the same way theyll ignore the 1d6 damage archers who only hit on natural 20s.

[Deophaun]

I wouldn't say that pain is used to deal damage.
Power word: pain and wall of pain say "Hi."

Besides, it wasn't simply limited to damage. It includes all attacks. So symbol of pain, wave of pain, or just simply pain, all demonstrate the principle.

[JellyPooga]

Unless you houserule being on fire to be more damage, it does 1d6 fire damage per round. Anyone with sufficient HP will just ignore it, the same way theyll ignore the 1d6 damage archers who only hit on natural 20s.

...and I'll still tell you to roleplay or get off my table. I don't care if the mechanical effect is insignificant, being on fire or shot at should have an appropriate response. It need not be a negative one, but it must be appropriate. A Wizard might have 100HP, but if he turns to me and says he walks blithely through the hail of arrows, then I'll call him on inappropriate roleplaying. If he tells me he quickly dashes from cover to cover, trying to avoid the incoming arrows, then I'm more than happy. Mechanical effect? Identical.

Similarly (to bring it back on topic), an Illusionist creates a Major Image of a firestorm around a Fighter, adjusting it to compensate for his actions and such. If the Fighter fails his Will save and says "Psh, it's only fire, I ignore it 'cause it's only 1d6 damage per round. I go attack the goblin", then I'll call him for poor roleplaying. If he says "Hot damn! I'm on fire. I rush forward to escape the flames, charging the goblin whilst still ablaze!" I smile and consider having the goblin run screaming in terror from the hulking, flaming warrior bulling towards him. If the pyrophobic Bard tries the same trick of ignoring the flames in a cool descriptive way, then I call him on poor roleplaying, but if he says that he stops, drops and rolls, then I'll pat him on the back for good roleplaying, even though it's to his detriment from a mechanical point of view.

[Curmudgeon]

...and I'll still tell you to roleplay or get off my table. I don't care if the mechanical effect is insignificant, being on fire or shot at should have an appropriate response.
"I look at the flames shooting out from my body and give a snort of derision, for I am a mighty adventurer. This is just another day at the job for me."

[JellyPooga]

"I look at the flames shooting out from my body and give a snort of derision, for I am a mighty adventurer. This is just another day at the job for me."

Sure, that's fine in my book; so long as it's an appropriate response for your character given the scenario. Pull out the same stock response for every character, however and I'll probably start calling you on it (though, to be fair, I wouldn't put you in the same situation often enough for it to be an issue).

As I say, my argument here is that Illusions, including Figments, are meant to feel as real as reality to those that fail their Will save (which would likely include pain, though I'll concede that others may prefer different milage out of their illusions). The Auto-pass option should be quite rare and only commonly used on permanent, uncontrolled illusions (such as a false wall concealing a passage). Figments that are being actively controlled are a whole different kettle of fish and should almost never have an auto-pass because the illusionist can manipulate the illusion to avoid such a scenario (Illusionists typically being pretty clever folk and all). Thus, a failed save should result in an appropriate response for the character in question. No forced effects or damage is inflicted, but the player of that character should consider what the character would do under the circumstances of the illusion, assuming it were real and not illusory.

[Gullintanni]

Y
Pain is a real effect, figments can't produce such a thing.

Pain isn't any more real than smell or sight or hearing. Pain is the result of a physical stimuli being detected by the nerves in our bodies, and then having that stimulus transmitted and interpreted to our brains via electrical signal.

The process by which the body interprets pain is no different than the process by which the body detects visual or auditory stimuli.

Heat, specifically the sensation of heat as an external stimulus, is interpreted via the same nerve endings that would otherwise tell the brain it should feel pain.

Ergo, the spell "Major Image", by including the ability to transmit thermal sensation, is explicitly including deception of the sense of touch as a component of the spell. Given that no limit is placed upon the intensity of the thermal illusion, and given that the external stimuli, "Heat" can produce pain by activating the same nerves that govern the sense of touch, then the subject can indeed feel pain as a result of the spell, and in fact, when combined with the visual sight of burning flesh, the smell of seared skin, and the sound of crackling flame, the victim of the illusion may well believe him or herself to be on fire.

That said, no real damage will have occurred. The outcome of the spell is that the senses touch, smell, sight, and hearing would have been fooled...which is exactly within the parameters of a Major Image. No real effect has been produced, the subject simply believes that the sensory input he is receiving is correct. Mechanically speaking, from a RAW point of view, none of this would inhibit the victim's actions at all. He could continue to fight on indefinitely, though logic would dictate that he try to extinguish the false "flames".

At best, you'd have forced your target to waste a few rounds trying to put himself out. If smothering the flames or diving into a pool of water didn't work, your target would then be justified in automatically disbelieving the illusion.

That's how I'd run it anyway.

[Slipperychicken]

"I look at the flames shooting out from my body and give a snort of derision, for I am a mighty adventurer. This is just another day at the job for me."

I'm seriously considering sigging this.

[Qwertystop]

Sure, that's fine in my book; so long as it's an appropriate response for your character given the scenario. Pull out the same stock response for every character, however and I'll probably start calling you on it (though, to be fair, I wouldn't put you in the same situation often enough for it to be an issue).

The thing is, if you look at what the fire actually does, and what the character can actually take, it's valid. The character might not know how much damage they can take in an exact numerical sense, but unless they haven't been wounded since the start of the adventure (and are really paranoid rather than really overconfident) they should have a general sense of whether something's a crippling near-lethal wound. If you want to houserule things so that Bards and Wizards and Sorcerers and the like don't gain HP by leveling, fine, but the actual state of the game is that by around tenth level, a Bard (who rolled average HP and somehow never brought their CON above 11) will, on average, survive more than a minute of being on fire before being incapacitated by it. Worst-case (max rolls every time), they still don't get downed until round 6.

That is actually just something that almost anyone can shrug off, at least for a little while, at mid-levels. You saw today's OOTS, wherein it is pointed out that Roy, despite "not having any magic," recently survived being impaled by a triceratops? Being extra-tough is not a Fighter thing, it's a mid-to-high-level thing. Fighters and Barbarians just get there a level or two sooner. Except that most other classes have more spare gold for survivability because they don't need magic weapons as much, so even getting there sooner is in question.

That's just how it works.

[Spuddles]

...and I'll still tell you to roleplay or get off my table. I don't care if the mechanical effect is insignificant, being on fire or shot at should have an appropriate response. It need not be a negative one, but it must be appropriate. A Wizard might have 100HP, but if he turns to me and says he walks blithely through the hail of arrows, then I'll call him on inappropriate roleplaying. If he tells me he quickly dashes from cover to cover, trying to avoid the incoming arrows, then I'm more than happy. Mechanical effect? Identical.

Similarly (to bring it back on topic), an Illusionist creates a Major Image of a firestorm around a Fighter, adjusting it to compensate for his actions and such. If the Fighter fails his Will save and says "Psh, it's only fire, I ignore it 'cause it's only 1d6 damage per round. I go attack the goblin", then I'll call him for poor roleplaying. If he says "Hot damn! I'm on fire. I rush forward to escape the flames, charging the goblin whilst still ablaze!" I smile and consider having the goblin run screaming in terror from the hulking, flaming warrior bulling towards him. If the pyrophobic Bard tries the same trick of ignoring the flames in a cool descriptive way, then I call him on poor roleplaying, but if he says that he stops, drops and rolls, then I'll pat him on the back for good roleplaying, even though it's to his detriment from a mechanical point of view.

So irrational behavior from characters in nonthreatening situations that coincide with your preconcieved notions of how players should run their characters counts as roleplaying at your table?

Just change the rules to make fire more dangerous.

Also, dashing to cover is mechanically much different that taking a single move action into the line of fire. One means you again are wasting your turn being running around for +2 AC, and the other means you take trivial HP damage to bring you into range of incapacitating an actual threat.

[nedz]

...and I'll still tell you to roleplay or get off my table. I don't care if the mechanical effect is insignificant, being on fire or shot at should have an appropriate response. It need not be a negative one, but it must be appropriate. A Wizard might have 100HP, but if he turns to me and says he walks blithely through the hail of arrows, then I'll call him on inappropriate roleplaying. If he tells me he quickly dashes from cover to cover, trying to avoid the incoming arrows, then I'm more than happy. Mechanical effect? Identical.

Similarly (to bring it back on topic), an Illusionist creates a Major Image of a firestorm around a Fighter, adjusting it to compensate for his actions and such. If the Fighter fails his Will save and says "Psh, it's only fire, I ignore it 'cause it's only 1d6 damage per round. I go attack the goblin", then I'll call him for poor roleplaying. If he says "Hot damn! I'm on fire. I rush forward to escape the flames, charging the goblin whilst still ablaze!" I smile and consider having the goblin run screaming in terror from the hulking, flaming warrior bulling towards him. If the pyrophobic Bard tries the same trick of ignoring the flames in a cool descriptive way, then I call him on poor roleplaying, but if he says that he stops, drops and rolls, then I'll pat him on the back for good roleplaying, even though it's to his detriment from a mechanical point of view.

I'd expect a strong reaction to being set on fire from low level characters, because they should be quite green. The mechanics support this since 1d6 is significant at level 1. From higher level characters I'd expect more Sang Froid since they have been through several life threatening situations already, and this one is fairly minor.
So a high level character ignoring being set on fire is good role-play, and is supported mechanically.

[jedipotter]

Similarly (to bring it back on topic), an Illusionist creates a Major Image of a firestorm around a Fighter, adjusting it to compensate for his actions and such. If the Fighter fails his Will save and says "Psh, it's only fire, I ignore it 'cause it's only 1d6 damage per round. I go attack the goblin", then I'll call him for poor roleplaying. If he says "Hot damn! I'm on fire. I rush forward to escape the flames, charging the goblin whilst still ablaze!" I smile and consider having the goblin run screaming in terror from the hulking, flaming warrior bulling towards him. If the pyrophobic Bard tries the same trick of ignoring the flames in a cool descriptive way, then I call him on poor roleplaying, but if he says that he stops, drops and rolls, then I'll pat him on the back for good roleplaying, even though it's to his detriment from a mechanical point of view.


I guess the question is: do you do the same for real effects? If the same fighter ignores a real wall of fire with the ''Eh, it is just a little burn damage...I keep hacking at the dragon'', would you call them out on bad role-playing? When the bard who can't swim and is afraid of water falls in a real river and says ''I make an untrained swim check to get to shore'', do you call them out on bad role-playing?

Or are illusions special in your game that they get the ''real'' effects of ''real'' things.....but the ''real'' things themselves have no such effect.

[JellyPooga]

The thing is, if you look at what the fire actually does, and what the character can actually take, it's valid...You saw today's OOTS, wherein it is pointed out that Roy, despite "not having any magic," recently survived being impaled by a triceratops?...That's just how it works.


So irrational behavior from characters in nonthreatening situations that coincide with your preconcieved notions of how players should run their characters counts as roleplaying at your table?

Just change the rules to make fire more dangerous.


So a high level character ignoring being set on fire is good role-play, and is supported mechanically.

My response to all three of these is to point out that HP are not a real thing in the game world (unless you're playing in an OOTS-esque universe; which, I think we can probably agree, most games are not), whilst fire and the horns of large animals typically are. The game effects of being on fire or hit in combat by a large impaling weapon do not necessarily correlate to actually being burned or physically impaled. The game mechanic of scaling HP simulates a combination of physical toughness, luck, skill, blessing of the gods and any other heroic device you can conceive that makes a character a pro/antagonist.

A level 10 Wizard with Con 10, for example, might have 30HP but that does not necessarily make him more resistant to actual pain or physically tougher than a level 1 Barbarian with Con 16 and 15HP. What he does have is a wealth of experience (combat and otherwise) and possibly even a minor magical resistance from years of using arcane powers, which combine to allow him to avoid the adverse effects of incoming blows, fatigue, etc. for a greater duration than the Barbarian. So when a triceratops charges, the "attack" might "hit", but the character on the receiving end is probably not actually impaled until his HP have dropped below 0 (unless some other game effect says otherwise). Sure, the Lvl.10 Wizard can take more and/or worse hits from such an attack before he reaches the "impaled" condition, but once that condition is achieved, the response of the character should not depend on the metagame construct of maximum HP, but rather the physical and psychological condition of the character in question. A Barbarian impaled by a triceratops might bellow with rage and flail ineffectually at his nemesis before his failing strength abandons him, whilst a Wizard merely collapses from shock.

Likewise, the same two characters with the game condition "on fire" take 1d6 damage per round. This condition does not necessarily mean that the character is engulfed in a pillar of flames, but is rather merely suffering the effects of fire of some description. This is why spells that deal fire damage don't all deal 1d6 damage per round. Now, the Lvl.10 Wizards player cares less about being "on fire" than the Lvl.1 Barbarians because he has more HP. However the in-game effect of this is likely not that the Wizard is simply nonchalant about the condition, but rather that his experience of flames is such that he knows how to cope with it more efficiently; perhaps he can sense the shift of the flames at his feet to move around the worst of the heat or he's really good at patting out small flames (probably a trait a lot of Pyromancers get good at).

Being able to deal with the "on fire" condition is not, however, the same as being physically engulfed with flames. Under such circumstances, unless the character has actually been in a similar situation before, no amount of "good patting out" or "efficient foot moving" is going to help; he's actually, hopelessly on fire and about to die as a result (which is, after all, what happens when you're that badly burning)!

The Illusion of being on fire I've been talking about is not the trivial 1d6/round kind (why would it be if you were the one casting the Illusion?), but rather skipping to the "hopelessly engulfed in a pillar of flame" type. Does the Wizard say "huh, it's only 1d6 HP/round, I can survive that", or does he run screaming in a circle, looking for a large body of water? The Illusion of being impaled by a triceratops (which a Figment could not believably achieve), skips straight past the HP damage and straight to the horn through the gut. Does the Wizard shrug it off as only being 1d8+4 damage (or whatever it is; I'm not looking up dinosaur stats for the sake of this argument) or believe that he's got a honking great bit of animal where his belly should be? How does he react? Is that reaction appropriate to who his character really is and not just the stats he has written down? That is what I care about in a game. That is what I care about when dealing with illusions and their perceived reality.


I guess the question is: do you do the same for real effects?

Of course. As a GM, I look for my players to roleplay their character, not just play a numbers game, whether the numbers get involved or not.

[Necroticplague]

Being able to deal with the "on fire" condition is not, however, the same as being physically engulfed with flames. Under such circumstances, unless the character has actually been in a similar situation before, no amount of "good patting out" or "efficient foot moving" is going to help; he's actually, hopelessly on fire and about to die as a result (which is, after all, what happens when you're that badly burning)!

Actually, fire isn't horrifically lethal in its own right. The main problems are that A; it's excellent at choking you (uses up oxygen, releases CO and CO2), and B; it causes heat-related issues, like sunstroke. The former is much more of an immediate issue, thanks to the body being mostly water (thank you, heat capacity). So if you feel like you're burning, but you can still breath fine, you still have a few minutes before you have to worry.

[TuggyNE]

Actually, fire isn't horrifically lethal in its own right. The main problems are that A; it's excellent at choking you (uses up oxygen, releases CO and CO2), and B; it causes heat-related issues, like sunstroke. The former is much more of an immediate issue, thanks to the body being mostly water (thank you, heat capacity). So if you feel like you're burning, but you can still breath fine, you still have a few minutes before you have to worry.

This is also why smoke in housefires is generally more worrisome than actual flames.

[Sith_Happens]

Fire is hot. Heat hurts.

There's two different kinds of "hurt" at play, though:


hurt [hurt]
verb (used with object), hurt, hurt·ing.
1. to cause bodily injury to; injure: He was badly hurt in the accident.
2. to cause bodily pain to or in: The wound still hurts him.

Real heat does #2 because it does #1. No matter how hot you make your Major Image, though, it will not cause pain, because on a sensory level heat and pain are entirely separate things and the spell only simulates the former.


Sure, that's fine in my book; so long as it's an appropriate response for your character given the scenario. Pull out the same stock response for every character, however and I'll probably start calling you on it (though, to be fair, I wouldn't put you in the same situation often enough for it to be an issue).

Here's a slightly different stock phrase that should be applicable to any and every mid-to-high-level character that's not irrationally afraid of injury:

"I've survived worse."

You show me a PC for which that statement is false, and I'll give two craps how you think that PC should react.


Being able to deal with the "on fire" condition is not, however, the same as being physically engulfed with flames. Under such circumstances, unless the character has actually been in a similar situation before, no amount of "good patting out" or "efficient foot moving" is going to help; he's actually, hopelessly on fire and about to die as a result (which is, after all, what happens when you're that badly burning)!

The Illusion of being on fire I've been talking about is not the trivial 1d6/round kind (why would it be if you were the one casting the Illusion?), but rather skipping to the "hopelessly engulfed in a pillar of flame" type. Does the Wizard say "huh, it's only 1d6 HP/round, I can survive that", or does he run screaming in a circle, looking for a large body of water?

For one thing, the Wizard will pass the Spellcraft check to know that you casted Major Image and not a fire spell, and that a Major Image spell cannot have actually set him on fire just then. So most likely he's going to react by laughing at you and/or asking if you think he's that stupid.:smalltongue:

Assuming for the sake of argument that that particular barrier is somehow bypassed (you used the False Theurgy skill trick, for example), I see him doing the following two things in response to thinking he's on fire:

1. Whatever it is exactly the game assumes him to be doing such that he gets a free DC 15 Reflex save each round to put out the fire.

2. Dedicate all of his actual combat actions to ensuring that you, the one who set him fire, do not continue to threaten his life.

Congratulations, you just spent a 3rd level spell slot to make a 10th level Wizard mad at you. Have fun.


The Illusion of being impaled by a triceratops (which a Figment could not believably achieve), skips straight past the HP damage and straight to the horn through the gut. Does the Wizard shrug it off as only being 1d8+4 damage (or whatever it is; I'm not looking up dinosaur stats for the sake of this argument) or believe that he's got a honking great bit of animal where his belly should be? How does he react? Is that reaction appropriate to who his character really is and not just the stats he has written down? That is what I care about in a game. That is what I care about when dealing with illusions and their perceived reality.

Like you said, a Figment can't properly simulate impalement in the first place, so the question is irrelevant. A Phantasm simulating impalement, meanwhile, will specify the specific game effects thereof, so the question is still irrelevant.

[JellyPooga]

Real heat does #2 because it does #1. No matter how hot you make your Major Image, though, it will not cause pain, because on a sensory level heat and pain are entirely separate things and the spell only simulates the former.

I think we've already established that the pain-giving qualities of a Figment are open to interpretation. There isn't, I don't think, a qualifying rule to define it and so it's one of those that reverts to GM discretion.



Here's a slightly different stock phrase that should be applicable to any and every mid-to-high-level character that's not irrationally afraid of injury:

"I've survived worse."

You show me a PC for which that statement is false, and I'll give two craps how you think that PC should react.

If the statement is, in fact, true that the PC has survived worse and he's the kind of character to judge his every action by the relative quality of it, then I am happy with that phrase. If, however, your character is routinely being blithe about every experience because he's "survived worse", then I'll probably call you on poor roleplaying. For example; go have a really nice steak dinner. Good, isn't it? Now go have a good beef burger and chips. Is it still good? Does your mouth still salivate? Do you not enjoy the experience of a good burger, even though the steak dinner was technically a better experience? Adjust this example for personal preference and taste and now consider the alternative where pain is involved; go shove your hand into an open flame. Hurts, huh? Once it's healed, hold a lit match to your naked flesh. Do you flinch?

Unless you've experienced a particular sensation a great many times, then a new circumstance is usually (almost always) going to provoke a new response, even if you have "survived worse". Sure, some (maybe even a lot of) adventurers might be practical enough to take a "survived worse" attitude, but not all. Player characters are as diverse as fish in the sea and you're trying to tell me that every PC above a certain level is going to shrug off any given illusion because he's "survived worse"? No. I don't accept that.


For one thing, the Wizard will pass the Spellcraft check...Assuming for the sake of argument that that particular barrier is somehow bypassed

Making that assumption is probably something we can safely do...the Wizard in the example believes the illusory fire, after all!


1. Whatever it is exactly the game assumes him to be doing such that he gets a free DC 15 Reflex save each round to put out the fire.

Huh? Didn't I already qualify that this illusory fire is probably not the "1d6/round, DC:15 Reflex negates" type (admittedly, I didn't specify the DC:15 part...I kind of assumed that it was implied). What kind of moronic Illusionist would give you the impression your clothes were mildly burning such that a "stop, drop and roll" would actually help when he's got the ability, with the same spell, to let his imagination run riot and, say, give you the impression that you were standing within a fire-vortex? Assuming, of course, he wants to actually hinder you and not merely play a prank.


Like you said, a Figment can't properly simulate impalement in the first place, so the question is irrelevant. A Phantasm simulating impalement, meanwhile, will specify the specific game effects thereof, so the question is still irrelevant.

Yes, a Phantasm would likely specify the game effect of that particular example, but it is just an example. To use an older example that demonstrates the same point; the illusory wall covering a passage. Your character believes the illusion. If his response is to lean on the wall, just in case it's an illusion, without any other in-game reason to do so (i.e. the player is using metagame knowledge), then I'll call you on poor roleplaying. It's an inappropriate response to the stimulus the character is subjected to.

Another, perhaps more relevant, example might be the illusion of a Balor hurtling down a corridor towards your 3rd level character; appropriate response? Probably not to be blithe about the whole affair because he's aware of the existence of illusions and that it's unlikely that the DM would throw such a high CR encounter at your low-level party.

More relevant still and to bring it back to the OP? The illusion of a dragon breathing a gout of flame over your character. Your character believes the illusion; dragon, fire, the lot. Has he experienced dragon-fire before? Possibly. Does he believe he's engulfed in flame? Yes. Is he going to shrug it off because "you don't get dragon-fire like you used to in the old days, dragon-fire hurt more in the old days"? Maybe, if your character is the sort to do so. Is every character going to do so? No. You want to always play a character of the kind that shrugs off dragon-fire? That's your prerogative, but don't claim that everyone wants to or that every character, PC or NPC, subjected to the same illusion is going to be as casually cool about the situation as your character is.

[sabelo2000]

SO many things wrong with this argument.

I'll start by addressing the OP.

OP, your question is one of roleplaying, not mechanics. By your own admission, a figment spell cannot "force" any game effect against its target. Any collateral effects caused by it are thereby the purview of the character (and its player) independent of the rules; in other words, roleplaying.

So; your target (lets say the hypothetical bard, who is +/- 13th level and therefore normally not in danger of being killed by a single fireball, but whose player portrays him as being deathly afraid of fire due to a childhood incident; also, let's pretend he's alone and escaping from a disastrous ambush by an umber hulk, and so he's in single-digit hit points) somehow fails his Will save against a Major Image of a Fireball. He sees the flames, smells the smoke and burning hair, and feels the heat which CAN BE AS SEARING AS YOU DAMN-WELL WANT (see below). The Fireball is an instantaneous effect, so by the time the bard realizes he isn't actually injured, the illusion is gone and he is free to go on with his turn. According to the rules, you cannot enforce anything further against this bard. Even something as simple as telling him, "you lose your move action as you blink the glare out of your eyes and pat yourself around the legs and chest to make sure you're still in one piece" is beyond the scope of the spell.

HOWEVER.

A player can have his character react AS IF he entirely believed he was being blasted to smithereens. This requires either a willing participant (roleplaying) or some very creative DMing.

To wit: say you blast your bard with the Major Image fireball. You describe the lazer-beam flash of the pellet streaking toward him; the blast of searing heat, the smell of sulfur and stink of burning hair, the flash of red flame as the spell detonates; the charred ruin of the area as he stands in the aftermath. You, as the DM, then roll your 10d6 onto the table in full view of everybody, then sit back and smile.

If the Bard's player reaches for his hit point pad and starts tallying-up dice, then you're justified in charge him a move or standard action to realize he isn't actually roasted. But if the player says something like, "Okay, how much damage DO I TAKE?" then a fair and honest DM should say, "Erm, none actually. You feel just fine."

Of course, this can backfire: if the player says, "What, that was just an illusion? Oh, well the shock of it caused me a heart attack and I died anyway" then you've gone too far.

[sabelo2000]

Now, onto all the ridiculous minutiae of this too-long discussion.

To all the posters who have said a Figment can't cause any effect, not even a mental reaction because it's not [mind-effecting], I say bunk. Likewise to those who say an illusory Fireball can't be any warmer than a nice electric blanket.

To say that a figment can't affect a character's reactions is missing the point entirely. That's akin to saying that a character can't be afraid of a rampaging T-Rex because the T-Rex doesn't have Frightful Presence or some other [fear] ability. Likewise, don't tell me an illusory fire can't be hot enough to hurt. It can't cause damage, true, and the "pain" can't cause any distraction or status effect like a [pain] magic can; but things can hurt without being a [pain] spell. Stubbing your toe, getting a papercut, and having a headache are all flavorful things that can hurt one hell of a lot, without causing hit point damage or being a [pain] effect. Pain is a sensation; like any other, it varies in degree and can be altered by your mental state. The rules don't put any limit on the perceived temperature of an illusory fireball, therefore there's no reason it can't "feel" hot enough to impart a sensation of pain. It's just that sensation can't inflict any mechanical, rules effect.

That's just an aspect of good descriptive storytelling, which is part of being a good DM. Stop telling me that an illusory Fireball can't hurt because illusory fire is neither damage-dealing nor a [pain] effect. It's not either of those, it just hurts. likewise, don't complain about "blinking the glare of the campfire out of your eyes" because campfires can't cause a Dazzled state; or your "ears ringing from the dragon's roar" because it's not a [sonic] effect. Don't argue against good immersion.

[jedipotter]

I think we've already established that the pain-giving qualities of a Figment are open to interpretation. There isn't, I don't think, a qualifying rule to define it and so it's one of those that reverts to GM discretion.

Only in your Homebrew game. By the rules a figment can't cause pain or make you think you felt pain.

And if you wanted a figment to cause pain, or make someone think it caused pain, you would just have a mess on your hands. Like how does one react to the pain? Well, everyone is different. Some people cry like babies at a scratch, some people just grit there teeth when a nail goes through their foot. And a paper cut sure hurts a lot more then getting cut with a knife....for some people. If the target had experiences the spell effect, like being set on fire or choking on smoke, them they might ''remember'' how they reacted before and do so again. Although that does not make sense. If the character was in a barn fire and coughed a lot, does that say that whenever they see illusionary smoke they will cough just like the barn fire smoke made them cough? What if the wizard made ''five alarm fire smoke'', would the character just cough like the barn fire again? Or would their mind ''imagine'' what smoke might be like?

So how does ones mind ''imagine'' something they have not experienced? Well, they just make it up. But making it up is not real. So the worst illusionary smoke you can make.....would still just get a person to (maybe) cough.






More relevant still and to bring it back to the OP? The illusion of a dragon breathing a gout of flame over your character. Your character believes the illusion; dragon, fire, the lot. Has he experienced dragon-fire before? Possibly. Does he believe he's engulfed in flame? Yes. Is he going to shrug it off because "you don't get dragon-fire like you used to in the old days, dragon-fire hurt more in the old days"? Maybe, if your character is the sort to do so. Is every character going to do so? No. You want to always play a character of the kind that shrugs off dragon-fire? That's your prerogative, but don't claim that everyone wants to or that every character, PC or NPC, subjected to the same illusion is going to be as casually cool about the situation as your character is.

It would work like this:

The dragon illusion breathes fire. The characters get saves. The ones that make their saves ignore the illusion. The ones that fail their saves ignore the illusion.

Like:

DM: You see a red dragon come out of the cave and it breathes fire on your characters! Roll your saves.
Player 1:Roll. Makes save
Player 2:Roll Fails save.

DM to player 1: The dragon and the fire oddly shimmer and shine. You can oddly see through the body of the dragon in some spots, and the fire as well. You come to the conclusion that the dragon and the fire is not real and is just and illusion. Nothing happens as the fiery breath weapon hits your character.

DM to player 2 The dragon breathes it's fiery breath weapon on you. Nothing happens as the fiery breath weapon hits your character.

[Zweisteine]

DM: You see a red dragon come out of the cave and it breathes fire on your characters! Roll your saves.
Player 1:Roll. Makes save
Player 2:Roll Fails save.

DM to player 1: The dragon and the fire oddly shimmer and shine. You can oddly see through the body of the dragon in some spots, and the fire as well. You come to the conclusion that the dragon and the fire is not real and is just and illusion. Nothing happens as the fiery breath weapon hits your character.

DM to player 2 The dragon breathes its fiery breath weapon on you. Nothing happens as the fiery breath weapon hits your character.
That's about right, but I wouldn't say "nothing happens"... They notice the flames, but notice afterwards that nothing happened. This would probably prompt them to take an action to examine the illusion carefully (i.e. make another save for their turn).

The players already failed the first set of saves, to disbelieve the dragon completely.

[DM secretly makes will saves.]

DM: The dragon exhales a blast of flame towards you. Make reflex saves.

DM [in notes to players who succeeded the will save]: "As the flames lick you, you realize that you feel no pain. The flames, and the dragon, are not real."

To players who failed the will save, but did well on the reflex saves: "As the flames approach, you leap aside, barely avoiding the burst of fire. It's edges touch you, but you are unhurt."

To players who failed the will save and the reflex save: "You try to dodge, but the flames engulf you. Oddly, you feel no pain. As the flames dissipate, you see that the flames made no mark on you."

Illusions can not deal damage. An illusory flame would produce an uncomfortable level of heat, but never enough to deal damage. The target might believe they dodged or resisted, but they will never think they took damage.

Though that would be an interesting illusion (or, more likely, enchantment) itself.

It's a dual school (illusion/enchantment) spell. It makes the target believe they are wounded (illusion makes them see wounds on their body, enchantment makes them feel it). If this damage would knock them out, they make a save against being stunned, or dazed, or something similar. If they would be knocked out later, they make a save against a lesser condition.

[Chronos]

Incidentally, a few people have cited the rule that absolute proof that something's an illusion removes the need for a save... But that doesn't help, because no such proof is possible. To go back to the Fireball example: Bob the Fighter gets hit by what appears to all of his senses to be a fireball, but notices that he's completely unharmed by it (we'll assume here for the sake of argument that he can notice this). Is this proof that the fireball was an illusion? Not hardly. Maybe it just means that one of those buffs the cleric casts on him every morning that he doesn't pay attention to was Protection from Fire. Maybe that pretty ruby ring he found two weeks ago and has been wearing ever since was actually a Ring of Energy Resistance. Maybe there's a spellcaster that the party doesn't know about but who wants them to succeed is hiding invisibly next to them and cast a protective spell on the fighter without him knowing it. Yeah, these alternative explanations are unlikely, but they're still possible, and so the lack of damage doesn't prove the illusion.

[Qwertystop]

Incidentally, a few people have cited the rule that absolute proof that something's an illusion removes the need for a save... But that doesn't help, because no such proof is possible. To go back to the Fireball example: Bob the Fighter gets hit by what appears to all of his senses to be a fireball, but notices that he's completely unharmed by it (we'll assume here for the sake of argument that he can notice this). Is this proof that the fireball was an illusion? Not hardly. Maybe it just means that one of those buffs the cleric casts on him every morning that he doesn't pay attention to was Protection from Fire. Maybe that pretty ruby ring he found two weeks ago and has been wearing ever since was actually a Ring of Energy Resistance. Maybe there's a spellcaster that the party doesn't know about but who wants them to succeed is hiding invisibly next to them and cast a protective spell on the fighter without him knowing it. Yeah, these alternative explanations are unlikely, but they're still possible, and so the lack of damage doesn't prove the illusion.

Ha. And that also applies to every other illusion? Falling through a wall, to use the typical example, could be a ridiculously selective or inconsistently active magic item or spell that produces temporary incorporeality.

[Chronos]

Or a Passwall spell on the wall.

[Deophaun]

Incidentally, a few people have cited the rule that absolute proof
And here we have the giant red flag that what's about to follow is terribly, terribly wrong, because "absolute" is not a word that appears in the rules for illusion.

But that doesn't help, because no such proof is possible.
Good thing that such proof is not required then.

To go back to the Fireball example: Bob the Fighter gets hit by what appears to all of his senses to be a fireball, but notices that he's completely unharmed by it (we'll assume here for the sake of argument that he can notice this). Is this proof that the fireball was an illusion? Not hardly. Maybe it just means that one of those buffs the cleric casts on him every morning that he doesn't pay attention to was Protection from Fire. Maybe that pretty ruby ring he found two weeks ago and has been wearing ever since was actually a Ring of Energy Resistance. Maybe there's a spellcaster that the party doesn't know about but who wants them to succeed is hiding invisibly next to them and cast a protective spell on the fighter without him knowing it. Yeah, these alternative explanations are unlikely, but they're still possible, and so the lack of damage doesn't prove the illusion.
Here's an exercise for you to consider: A man steps on a floor, and then right through it. In a magical world, list all the possible explanations for this. Sure, it could be an illusion. It could also be an enchantment, making him believe he has fallen. Or maybe he was turned ethereal. Regardless, other explanations exist for him stepping through the floor, just like other explanations exist for your fireball. Of course, this means that he doesn't auto-disbelieve it, right? This can't qualify as "proof."

Except, of course...

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion.
And there is something else in that quote that's of interest as well: "knows something is amiss." What the heck is that? That's not disbelief, is it? Well...

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss.
Damn. So, we aren't looking for "absolute proof" at all. We're just looking for the person to notice something is amiss. My, that is a radically lower threshold to reach, isn't it? Basically, if you get hit with an illusion and the results do not make instant sense-like you have to ask why you didn't take damage-then you know something is amiss, and that's proof that the effect is an illusion. Done.

[PersonMan]

My response to all three of these is to point out that HP are not a real thing in the game world (unless you're playing in an OOTS-esque universe; which, I think we can probably agree, most games are not), whilst fire and the horns of large animals typically are. The game effects of being on fire or hit in combat by a large impaling weapon do not necessarily correlate to actually being burned or physically impaled. The game mechanic of scaling HP simulates a combination of physical toughness, luck, skill, blessing of the gods and any other heroic device you can conceive that makes a character a pro/antagonist.

This is mentioned in the rules, but in practice it's almost always a group-based thing. In my groups, a 1 damage attack isn't "you barely avoid the hit but feel the strain of combat grow" but rather "you get scratched by the blade as it almost cuts into your arm" - all real physical harm.

I think it's a personal preference thing related to what sort of game one plays. I really enjoy very much larger-than-life characters, for whom things like being impaled twice, peppered with arrows and almost bit in half would be the setup for them continuing to fight, bathed in their own blood, rather than for their funeral.

For these characters, at least, ignoring the danger posed by being on fire or similar would make perfect sense.


Of course. As a GM, I look for my players to roleplay their character, not just play a numbers game, whether the numbers get involved or not.

Reading your posts on this issue, I feel like you care more about the description than the contents, though. "I ignore the archers 'cause they can't hit me" and "I ignore the archers, rushing forwards with a growl" are just focusing on different aspects of the action (thought/reasoning vs outward appearance), yet you loathe one and have no issue with the other.

[Zweisteine]

Incidentally, a few people have cited the rule that absolute proof that something's an illusion removes the need for a save... But that doesn't help, because no such proof is possible.

Maybe it just means that one of those buffs the cleric casts on him every morning that he doesn't pay attention to was Protection from Fire. [snip]
I imagine the general assumption when using that example is that the target of the fireball does not have evasion, is not the target of any buffs, and is not using any mysterious magic items. The target then realizes he is unharmed, and generally assumes it was an illusion. With that belief in his mind, he is able to see through the illusion (or course, an illusion of a fireball would already be gone, so it wouldn't make much of a difference).

Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the proof must be absolute. As long as the proof is strong enough, it will go around the save. Otherwise, for example, a high-level caster could create an illusory wall, tell an observer it was an illusion, allow the observer to perform any nonmagical tests, and the observer would be unable to disbelieve the illusion, because they could not meet the save DC, despite being told and seeing that the wall was fake.

As for finding proof, there are plenty of ways. Walking through an illusory wall is the most obvious, but you could also throw a rock at it or watch someone else walk through it. OF course, watching someone else go through is weak enough evidence to only grant a save, but direct physical interaction will usually tell you that something is fake in every case. (This might not always apply, but taking a (partial) move action to step back and forth through the wall should show that it's fake.)

In any case, certain proofs are absolute:
True seeing will show that something is an illusion (and when the spell wears off, you'll still know what illusions are near you).
Greater arcane sight will show that an illusion radiates illusion magic, and which spell is involved.
The Spellcraft skill will tell you when the caster creates the illusion.

[Drogorn]

Of course. As a GM, I look for my players to roleplay their character, not just play a numbers game, whether the numbers get involved or not.

You are playing the wrong game. If you want your people to react to being set on fire like it's threatening, then it should actually be threatening.

[PersonMan]

You are playing the wrong game. If you want your people to react to being set on fire like it's threatening, then it should actually be threatening.

No, see, he doesn't want that. He just wants them to say that they're ignoring it in a descriptive fashion that shows their actions rather than thoughts.

"I ignore the fire because it's not a threat" is a thought-focused description, which he dislikes.

"I laugh at the fools who think that setting me on fire is going to help them and keep attacking" is an action-and-appearance-focused description, which he likes.

[Sith_Happens]

I think we've already established that the pain-giving qualities of a Figment are open to interpretation. There isn't, I don't think, a qualifying rule to define it and so it's one of those that reverts to GM discretion.

No, feelings of heat and feelings of pain are two demonstrably separate things, there just so happens to be a large subset of heat sources that cause both.



If, however, your character is routinely being blithe about every experience because he's "survived worse", then I'll probably call you on poor roleplaying. For example; go have a really nice steak dinner. Good, isn't it? Now go have a good beef burger and chips. Is it still good? Does your mouth still salivate? Do you not enjoy the experience of a good burger, even though the steak dinner was technically a better experience? Adjust this example for personal preference and taste and now consider the alternative where pain is involved; go shove your hand into an open flame. Hurts, huh? Once it's healed, hold a lit match to your naked flesh. Do you flinch?

Unless you've experienced a particular sensation a great many times, then a new circumstance is usually (almost always) going to provoke a new response, even if you have "survived worse". Sure, some (maybe even a lot of) adventurers might be practical enough to take a "survived worse" attitude, but not all. Player characters are as diverse as fish in the sea and you're trying to tell me that every PC above a certain level is going to shrug off any given illusion because he's "survived worse"? No. I don't accept that.

Almost all PCs and people in general are going to have a common theme in their responses to possible harm: Avoid or minimize that harm. How effectively or rationally they go about doing that will vary, but anyone who makes a job or hobby of being in frequent danger is either (a) going to respond quite effectively and more or less rationally, or (b) long-since dead already. In the case of a spellcaster who just set you on fire, the effective response is to either get out of dodge or kick their ass. Running in circles and screaming does not aid either task, and stop-drop-rolling actually hinders both.


Huh? Didn't I already qualify that this illusory fire is probably not the "1d6/round, DC:15 Reflex negates" type (admittedly, I didn't specify the DC:15 part...I kind of assumed that it was implied).

That's the only kind of being on fire there is that doesn't involve the external fire source that ignited you still being there, so yes, the illusion is of that kind.


What kind of moronic Illusionist would give you the impression your clothes were mildly burning such that a "stop, drop and roll" would actually help when he's got the ability, with the same spell, to let his imagination run riot and, say, give you the impression that you were standing within a fire-vortex? Assuming, of course, he wants to actually hinder you and not merely play a prank.

That scenario you've been having us all assume until now is one of being on fire, not being in fire. But yes, anyone convinced that they're in fire would do well to attempt to get out of that fire. And then kick the ass of whoever put them in it so they don't do it again.

Seriously, if you're expecting to significantly phase a typical D&D PC you need to start at "the untamed, unquenchable hellfire of Mephistopheles himself" and up the ante from there, and at high enough level that will stop working too. Because no matter how much arguing, nit-picking, and complaining you do, someone trained in the art of responding effectively to danger is not going to suddenly lose that ability just because the danger level has increased. Anything else would be, to borrow your turn of phrase, "bad roleplaying."

Feel free to try this trick on random villagers, though, at least if I were DMing it would probably work in that case.