Illusions in combat

[barawn]

I've got an NPC illusionist in the campaign I DM who's a bit of a fluff character: he's not a "combat-hardened" type, and so literally, the only spells he knows are Divinations and Illusions, and we're only talking up to 3rd level spells here. He's basically a "These spells keep me alive" type - by running away, that is. So he generally does little/nothing in combat.

There's a bit of a climactic battle coming up, and I realized that while his illusions can't actually attack and do damage, there's plenty that you can do in battle without doing damage, or actually striking anything. Except I can't find anything (well, almost nothing) in the SRD or the books I have regarding how to handle illusions in combat, so I figured I'd ask what others do.

Major image specifically says that the figment disappears when hit, unless you make it react properly - but that seems, um, silly, considering there's no resistance on a strike, so unless you have it split in two, it ain't reacting properly. So I'd basically say "if opponent hits AC 10 (plus size modifier), it either disappears, or the opponent disbelieves the illusion (or gets a +20 on another check to disbelieve it )".

The other problem might've been brought up elsewhere, but I've never found answers: if an illusion isn't disbelieved, and it's of a combatant, I'd rule that it provides a flanking bonus, but I'm curious what others would think. I might even rule that it can Aid Another in combat, since all Aiding Another is is interfering with, or distracting an opponent, although I wouldn't know how to handle the attack roll there.

There's also the question of whether or not Minor Image could be used rather than Major Image.

[Maryring]

Well, I don't know any official ruling. It all is up to the DM I'd say. However what you propose is good ideas. Now... to see if I can answer...

Regarding "reacting properly" it would be more than just being hit by a sword. For example, if the illusion is hit, reacting properly would be changing the appearance so that the illusion appears charred. A hit that isn't a critical might not be a "real" hit either, but a glancing cut, which would be easy to react to. Just give the illusion a red line and a small trickle of blood. Since you are both DMing and playing the NPC, you should know when the NPC is hit, and when he receives a small wound. If not, I'd ask the DM to describe exactly what happens, or describe exactly what happens (I.E. advice for lurkers).

On the flanking and aiding another, I'd only allow it for Major Image. After all, I'd say that flanking and aiding includes both sound and sight. Minor Image just doesn't give enough sound. However, I'd give the target (the one being flanked/aided against) a will save each time an ally makes use of the flank, or the Illusion aids another.

[martyboy74]

But the best the thing to do with illusions in combat at that level? Make an illusion of Darkness. Tell your allies beforehand.

[Indon]

Well, if I were going to make an illusion of a combatant who wasn't physically real, and hitting him would give that away, I'd make an illusion of a person with Mirror Image cast; and every time the enemy hits, an image vanishes... with, of course, the exception that the last 'image' vanishes when hit too.

[Gamebird]

Another idea is to use illusions of incorporeal creatures, so there's no indication that an attack really "hit" it.

[martyboy74]

Why would you attack an incoporeal creature in the first place? (Assuming non-ghost touch)

[Gamebird]

Because you think it's going to level drain you?

[PinkysBrain]

There is always battlefield control, wall spells are great ... illusions of wall spells are great too.

[barawn]

Well, if I were going to make an illusion of a combatant who wasn't physically real, and hitting him would give that away, I'd make an illusion of a person with Mirror Image cast; and every time the enemy hits, an image vanishes... with, of course, the exception that the last 'image' vanishes when hit too.

That's not a bad idea. The wizard could just hide, peeking around a corner, and make an image of himself, Mirror Imaged, and send him into combat.

I always feel bad having him around for combat, since he usually does so little. It's even worse if he actually does something, usually, since the party gets ticked off for losing experience for him helping out.

With his luck, the Major Image will just be disbelieved by everyone immediately anyway.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to disbelieve an illusion until you interact with it.

[barawn]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to disbelieve an illusion until you interact with it.

Well, any illusion with a serious effect would be interacted with pretty quickly. :smallbiggrin:

[kamikasei]

That's not a bad idea. The wizard could just hide, peeking around a corner, and make an image of himself, Mirror Imaged, and send him into combat.

Mage Bunshin no Jutsu! ducks

[Aximili]

I'd say you only interact with it when you get in close combat.
If you're 30 feet you wouldn't be able to realise that the sound of his footsteps doesn't coincide with his feet movement. Or that his swordblow doesn't move any air whith his almost hits. Or that his eyes aren't looking directly at you eventhough you are in melee with him.

[Seffbasilisk]

Major Image. I believe you can flank with that. And if the mage was concentrating, the sound of the footsteps would match it, and he doesn't have to have near hits, and even then, in battle, you think more about the 'vhhhht!' noise as it whips by then the slight brush of air.

[barawn]

I don't actually think, by RAW, that any illusions (figments) provide flanking. I've never seen it answered definitively, though.

That's kindof why I was asking. I'd definitely house rule it. It's moronic that it wouldn't. As far as the combatant is concerned, there's a real character there. It's not like you're talking about the illusion causing damage. The argument that I've read elsewhere (not from official sources, though) is that "figments can't threaten". That sounds to me like ruling that an illusory wall doesn't provide cover/concealment.

I'm just curious what other people would rule.

[Aximili]

Major Image. I believe you can flank with that. And if the mage was concentrating, the sound of the footsteps would match it, and he doesn't have to have near hits, and even then, in battle, you think more about the 'vhhhht!' noise as it whips by then the slight brush of air.
Thats why you make a Will save. If it were something obvious or easy to notice, the save wouldn't be necessary.

And who says that the sound would match the footsteps exactly. There are already so many details to cover. The wizards ability to simulate something convincingly has to reach a limit, and that's where the DC comes in.

Besides, those were only a few examples. There are so many things that can go wrong in an illusion. Your skin shade is not realistic. Your hair or robes are not swinging correctly as you move. Your are not sweating. You are not blinking. Heck! maybe even some stupid stuff like you forgot to breath or the inside of your mouth is blank when you open it.

I realise these are very minor indications (most don't shout out "ILLUSION!!"), but thats the sort of stuff that entitles disbelieve checks. The only problem I see is that Will saves are not the most apropriate disbelieve checks, but I can't think of anything else to use instead.

EDIT: Even something as simple as an illusory brick wall can entitle a save when you look close enough. Just think of all the tiny little details you see on close inspection of a brick wall. Anyone one of those the mage might have missed when creating his illusion.

[Grey Paladin]

As an long time illusionist I find your post overwhelmingly offensive to my kin, playing an illusionist is an art, while you simply have to aim a fireball, you really must think it through with illusions.

Now, what you must understand is that illusions by themselves are very limited in their use, they need summoning spells and battlefield control to be effective, but with the right conditions, they are absolutely brutal.

Being an illusionist is about using the knowledge of your foes against them and making them doubt their grasp of reality.

One of my favorite tricks goes like this (mainly used to solo encounters when the rest of your party dies on you): conjure a couple phantasms of some utterly fearsome creature and make them, say, hold the line, cast Dig before the battle and cover the hole with an illusion, set this up by sending one of the illusions ahead and let an opponent purposefully shatter it so they'll figure out the fact that the monster guarding you is also an illusion, if the fall doesn't kills them the very real monster you summoned into that hole will likely do so, while the survivor are making their way out of the hole (which you can make even slower by utilizing Stretch Distance or Grease ((that I would often set on fire in earlier levels when I had no other source for damage)) ) conjure an image of yourself mirror imaged (pretty much what Indon suggested) and summon the badass beast from earlier and a pair of illusionary copies (they have to have a pretty high AC for this to work though,I used the high level shades as they make no sound so I could save spell slots, then again it was back in 2E when Shades were badass) make the two illusionary beasts avoid blows and make your image seem as if it keeps casting spells behind the beasts.

calmly send additional summons or whatever you want, really, from the safety of your hideout and preferably invisibility.

playing an illusionist takes a lot more planning then any other type of character, if played without creativity it is doubtlessly the weakest school, but illusions are not meant to simply be cast, they are meant to misdirect the opponent and make him unaware of other dangers.

Beside, what can possibly be more fun then making an image of yourself and then place a spear pointing forward hidden within it and watching your opponent impale himself? =P

[Bears With Lasers]

You don't get a save to disbelieve until you interact with an illusion.

Now look up what that involves. Yeah, that'll take an action or two, which you don't want to waste in the middle of combat.

[barawn]

As an long time illusionist I find your post overwhelmingly offensive to my kin, playing an illusionist is an art, while you simply have to aim a fireball, you really must think it through with illusions.

Note that the NPC in question has only Div and Illusion spells available (levels 1-3). Those are the only spells he ever learned. If you think about it from a self-preservation point, it's fine, because he's not really interested in killing anything else, just escaping alive.

Pretty much the only things he could do in combat are a few support spells - Blur, Displacement (which he would never have memorized anyway - Invis. Sphere and Major Image are more useful). Color Spray has basically run its course at 5th-6th level and besides, it's a 15 foot range, so a little too close for comfort for a coward.

[Grey Paladin]

Well then, the set-row-of-spears-against-a-bunch-of-charging-warriors-and- cover-it-with-an-illusion manuver still works fine, same for manually digging a hole and covering it, and making an illusion of the rogue and make it die after the first blow from the BBEG while the rogue sneaks in and makes an assassination attempt, or make it seem as if an image of himself is prepeared to counter the BBEG's spells, mainly waste the time of his opponents.

[Roethke]

Both battlefield control and combat support are viable choices. I love illusionists, so, I tend to go for battlefield control. You're bit more of a star this way.

Anyhow, on the support side. Hugely useful spells-- Clairaudiance/Clairvoyance. Intelligence is extremely important. If the PC's know guard patrols, passwords, where the soft squishy patches of baddies are, it's an advantage. Anything that can be talked about/maps & plans are fair game.
Invisibility Sphere. Nothing like being where the badguys least expect you.
Detect Thoughts+Invisibility. You're the perfect scout.
Color Spray. Don't knock this spell. By 5th level you can have quite a few of these memorized, and with 15' cones, you can affect large swaths of little badguys.

Now the fun stuff. For Battlefield control, you'll want to rely on your Major/minor/silent image spells, maybe Ventriloquism and even ghost sound. What you want to achieve is sucking up all the enemy's time and spells extinguishing your illusions, while your allies do the real work.

A tried and true tactic is creating allies that don't exist. The enemy will waste valuable time taking care of them, while your party can actually do damage. Archers and crossbowmen appearing on a hill is a good one. Nobody likes to be shot at, so they usually make a tempting target. Even just the sound of cavalry coming to your rescue can be useful.

Spook 'em. Fire's always good for this, as people tend to want to put it out. Darkness has been mentioned. Anything that will rattle morale is pretty good. Never faced undead before? A small horde of skeletons makes some good allies. Never seen an elephant? Major image will include scent, which will spook the enemy's horses.

Fool 'em. Think of Mirror image, but on a grander scale. If another wizard just summoned a critter, create an illusionary duplicate. If you have 2 barbarians charging to the front, a third or fourth one is more likely to be believed.

On the other side, if it's a really big battle, creating an illusion of enemy units in trouble/calling for help could rattle or disrupt the units you're facing.

that's the fun thing about illusion, the possibilities are endless

[barawn]

A tried and true tactic is creating allies that don't exist. The enemy will waste valuable time taking care of them, while your party can actually do damage. Archers and crossbowmen appearing on a hill is a good one. Nobody likes to be shot at, so they usually make a tempting target. Even just the sound of cavalry coming to your rescue can be useful.

Well, not necessarily. In most cases, the cavalry would likely be coming to aid their foes.

Anyway, this is the one tactic that I haven't been using much. Which is kindof why I started the thread. There's just little/no information about how Major/Minor Images behave in combat, that I can find. Most people think they can't flank, from what I can see, much less Aid Another.

I also was wondering what other people do when the illusions are actually hit. The "unless they're made to respond appropriately" just screams "DM's decision" and, given that I'm the DM... hence the reason I'm asking for advice.

[Grey Paladin]

Politely ask the player "do you change the illusion?, if so, how?"

done

[Bears With Lasers]

Here's a good use of a Minor Image: a thick wall of smoke. Tell your allies beforehand--they'll be able to see (and shoot) through it just fine; your enemies won't. If they want to disbelieve, they have to spend the time to interact with it, which should require a standard action or two.

[Dervag]

Well, any illusion with a serious effect would be interacted with pretty quickly. :smallbiggrin:Not if it's a brick wall.

I might very well not attempt to interact with the brick wall, assuming that it's a (&(#$ brick wall and that there's no point in my trying to go through it.


Here's a good use of a Minor Image: a thick wall of smoke. Tell your allies beforehand--they'll be able to see (and shoot) through it just fine; your enemies won't. If they want to disbelieve, they have to spend the time to interact with it, which should require a standard action or two.What with the clouding men's minds and all... good one.

[barawn]

Politely ask the player "do you change the illusion?, if so, how?"


It's an NPC, not a player. I'm trying to guess how an "average" wizard would handle it.


Here's a good use of a Minor Image: a thick wall of smoke. Tell your allies beforehand--they'll be able to see (and shoot) through it just fine; your enemies won't. If they want to disbelieve, they have to spend the time to interact with it, which should require a standard action or two.

Simple, effective, and easy to rule on. I like it.

[Josh Inno]

*puts on player hat*

Buuuut... what if I make an illusion of a really quick and agile thing that weaves and dodges so it's harder to actually make contact with? Shouldn't I be able to give my illusion some kind of dex or dodge bonuses? What if I give it a huge billowing cloak and any time they hit there's a tear in it. The cloth would rip easy, but they would 'happen' to have been in a different part of the cloak.

[Bears With Lasers]

Simple, effective, and easy to rule on. I like it.

It gets better. If there's two casters in the party (or you have that feat that lets you concentrate on a spell as a move/swift action with a check, or Sonorous Hum going, or Familiar Concentration, or something), make it seem like a Wall of Stone between the two groups, or around the party. Have the other caster casts non-ray spells through it (since they know it's an illusion); there won't be any way for the enemies to tell that the spells are coming through the wall.

An illusionary chasm or Blade Barrier-type deal should help control the battlefield, too.


One of the keys to effective illusionists is the right level of subtlety (or lack thereof). Against animals, just be blatant; they're not going to wonder if something's an illusion. Against intelligent opponents, be subtle and use their assumptions and familiarity with magic against them.

[Kantolin]

I also am fond of the two-casters deal.

Say the druid summons up 1d4 + 1 wolves. You then 'summon up' a heck of a lot more wolves simultaneously.

Give the druid a wolf companion, polymorph your fighter into a wolf, the druid wild shapes into a wolf. Be invisible or disguise yourself (Or just hide behind a tree).

Good stuff. The moment enemies start to ignore the wolves assuming they're phantasmal, start directing some of the summoned wolves after them. Or maybe your fighter.

Also fun are illusions over actual problems. Sure, when the fighter steps on the bridge he will immediately realize it's an illusion and not real... but you don't care so much then, as he commences falling.

[Gamebird]

As an long time illusionist ...

Good ideas, great for brain-storming, not so good on implementation. You assume you have time to set things up to your choosing, that you've memorized all the right spells, that Dig can go through the flooring material, that your enemies close for melee instead of using missile weapons, that your enemies are ground-bound and aren't flying, that you happen to be carrying a pile of spears, that you have time to work out proper braces to hold them at the right angle firmly enough to impale someone, etc.

A fireball, a solid fog spell, summon monster III, slow/haste, etc. - these things work regardless. They work in a range of different situations and circumstances, against a lot of different foes. They also rarely involve the sort of DM calls that illusions do - does shooting an illusion with an arrow equal "interacting with"? What about affecting them with an AoE spell or ability? Does an illusion of darkness really blind all creatures in it who don't make their save? Does an illusion of light really provide light for all creatures in it? Does an illusion of smoke, or a wall of stone, really impede vision? How close do you have to get to an illusion to get a save against it? Do you have to make an attack roll against it?

[barawn]

Good ideas, great for brain-storming, not so good on implementation. You assume you have time to set things up to your choosing, that you've memorized all the right spells, that Dig can go through the flooring material, that your enemies close for melee instead of using missile weapons, that your enemies are ground-bound and aren't flying, that you happen to be carrying a pile of spears, that you have time to work out proper braces to hold them at the right angle firmly enough to impale someone, etc.

Exactly. And part of the problem there is he's not a party member. He shows up occasionally and escorts the party someplace, and occasionally gets trapped in a battle. So the idea is "what would he do, that could help the party, wouldn't really require significant preplanning, and wouldn't go against the character's 'coward' personality."

The cloud of fog/smoke/haze is a good idea, I think. I also like the Major Image illusion of himself with a Mirror Image, but I'm still a little unsure of how much the illusion could actually do in combat.

[Bears With Lasers]

How about an Image of the party's other spellcaster (after throwing up an Invisibility first)?

[barawn]

How about an Image of the party's other spellcaster (after throwing up an Invisibility first)?

Party's two spellcasters are a combat-type cleric and a "Boom!" sorcerer. Hence the reason why Invisibility hasn't been useful yet. I thought it would be more useful (this is a looong running campaign, and so the party has evolved slightly).

To make matters worse, the one time they did use his Invisibility Sphere to get through a major troop encapment, they didn't take precautions to move silently, and so they did hear them, and a military wizard dispelled the invisibility. So, as you can imagine, they blamed it on him, making him even more useless in their eyes.

I was thrilled in the last combat when he was actually useful, as he was the only one with any method of seeing invisible. But that's been the only useful combat he's ever been in.

[Aximili]

Here's a good use of a Minor Image: a thick wall of smoke. Tell your allies beforehand--they'll be able to see (and shoot) through it just fine; your enemies won't. If they want to disbelieve, they have to spend the time to interact with it, which should require a standard action or two.

Minor image does not include smell. A thick cloud of smoke with no odor, no difficulty in breathing, and no coughing, is enough to entitle a disbelief check in my opinion. Of course, your allies would always see while your opponents would have to make the save. That's not bad for a 2nd level spell.

But (IMO) Major image should do the job megnificently.

[That Lanky Bugger]

Mage Bunshin no Jutsu! ducks

My DM in the one game I'm a player almost barred me from using illusions because Naruto was giving me too many good ideas. :smallbiggrin:

[Bears With Lasers]

Minor image does not include smell. A thick cloud of smoke with no odor, no difficulty in breathing, and no coughing, is enough to entitle a disbelief check in my opinion. Of course, your allies would always see while your opponents would have to make the save. That's not bad for a 2nd level spell.

But (IMO) Major image should do the job megnificently.
The smoke would be a wall between the two groups, not a cloud covering the enemies, so they shouldn't expect to cough.

If you're worried about that, make it fog, or some kind of Obviously Magical wall of dark smoky stuff with images of wraiths and the like.

[martyboy74]

Anyone want to venture a guess on what happens when you create a Major Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorImage.htm) of a Stinking Cloud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stinkingCloud.htm)?

[barawn]

Minor image does not include smell. A thick cloud of smoke with no odor, no difficulty in breathing, and no coughing, is enough to entitle a disbelief check in my opinion. Of course, your allies would always see while your opponents would have to make the save. That's not bad for a 2nd level spell.

But (IMO) Major image should do the job megnificently.

I was kindof thinking something more like a cloud of fog, although the lack of chill might be iffy too. A brick wall isn't a bad idea, though.

Does anyone actually think you can cast an illusory darkness spell? That seems really, really unlikely to me. I mean, I doubt you can cast an illusory Invisibility Sphere. I guess you could Minor Image a helmet with no eyeholes over someone, although I imagine they'd try to take it off, and poof goes the illusion.

[Bears With Lasers]

Their vision is obscured and stuff, but they're not nauseated.

[Aximili]

The smoke would be a wall between the two groups, not a cloud covering the enemies, so they shouldn't expect to cough.

If you're worried about that, make it fog, or some kind of Obviously Magical wall of dark smoky stuff with images of wraiths and the like.
Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Kantolin]

See, when you condition an enemy to start ignoring your magic assuming it's all illusion, that's when you throw one or two 'real' spells in there.

Enemy Fighter: Oh for the love of... how many times do you think I'm going to fall for the illusory wal - oompf!

[Arbitrarity]

Bah, mmy players did illusory darkness, on their enemies eyes... and then claimed it still saw the illusion, just knew it was an illusion.

On the other hand, (in 3.0), they used create water in lungs...

[Roethke]

Exactly. And part of the problem there is he's not a party member. He shows up occasionally and escorts the party someplace, and occasionally gets trapped in a battle. So the idea is "what would he do, that could help the party, wouldn't really require significant preplanning, and wouldn't go against the character's 'coward' personality."

The cloud of fog/smoke/haze is a good idea, I think. I also like the Major Image illusion of himself with a Mirror Image, but I'm still a little unsure of how much the illusion could actually do in combat.


Well, that's a major benefit of illusions, they let a wizard have the flexibility of a sorcerer.

Anyhow, Barawn,for your particular situation, you have the rare luxury of almost complete freedom. As you point out the illusionist is an NPC, you control him. You also control the actions of the enemies. Finally, none of your PC's is an illusionist (well, maybe the sorcerer can cast a few, but you described him as a 'Boom' sorc, so probably not that many without reworking). So you can make the illusions have as much or as little effect, without worrying whether your players will say "hey, why can't we do that!".



But, if you want a really fair ruling, I don't think you'll find much help from the sources. It usually ends up being a common sense thing.

Some guidelines I use,
If my illusion of a creature is hit by an arrow, and I'm concentrating on it, I can respond and add an illusion of wounding, or of arrows missing, no save. Engaging in melee (definitely counts as 'interacting') with the illusion, save. Fail the save, and the illusory combatant can flank. If the flanked opponent fails his save, but another enemy engages the illusion, the flanked opponent gets another save. Usually ruling will have a series consequences like this..

[Grey Paladin]

Barawn: You are the DM, excessive rule lawyering for things that are meant to be rather free-form seems illogical to me, just decide how illusions work in your game given the lack of official ruling, all posts here are mere suggestions.

Gamebird:A good wizard always plans ;) divination spells are an integral part of playing a character that doesn't actually has spells that directly deal damage/make you suck/kill you. I have said so and I'll say it again, illusions are only useful when combined with other spells.

Memorizing spells should be no problem for an experienced wizard, more so if s/he uses divination, I never could understand players that stick to spells that always work, I chose my spells based on what I know of my opponent, sure I may be caught surprised by an unexpected encounter, but that's what I have Shadow Conjuration for (modern specialists are spoiled, my 2E Illusionists didn't get a single spell capable of dealing damage until level 11 =P) Illusions are initially versatile, there is no point in inserting even more versatility when you can find out your opponent's weakness and brutally exploit it.

If your plan does not work under the opponent's conditions, change them, and always have a couple of them in reserve, a wizard, any wizard, without a Plan B, C, and D, is screwed. playing an illusionist simply takes a lot more planning, (and twice the amount of plans given the fact they happen to fail quite often =P) illusionists, much like rogues, play dirty and given the choice pick the battlefield or simply change it to fit their needs.

in a worst case scenario, you can still waste the opponent's time, thus letting the rest of your party to win the fight.

Finally, this may simply be my inner 2E player but I don't see any problem with DMs houseruling on the spot, in my opinion most DM's don't do that often enough and strictly follow the rules even when they deify logic, before the campaign, all this issues should be generally resolved, and durning the campaign, the DM should have the final word, rule number one in the Guide "all rules in this book are strictly optional and may be immediately overruled even if in use"

Or that's my opinon, at least.

[barawn]

Barawn: You are the DM, excessive rule lawyering for things that are meant to be rather free-form seems illogical to me, just decide how illusions work in your game given the lack of official ruling, all posts here are mere suggestions.


That's kindof what I was looking for - suggestions. The problem here is I want the illusionist to be useful, but not overly powerful - I don't want the sorcerer to think "man, I should pick up illusions if they're going to be that powerful."

That's why I'm a bit stuck: if it were a player, I'd err on the conservative side, knowing that players are more creative than me, and any limitations I set up, they'll work around. That's their job. But since I'm the DM, I'm worried I might be a bit too liberal in allowing what it can do. The thing I'm stuck on is how to handle saves, to be honest. If I'm allowing a save for every interaction, that kindof would imply at least a saving throw each round (flanking's an interaction), and then another one for each offensive action it takes (Aid Another, for instance).

[Roethke]

That's kindof what I was looking for - suggestions. The problem here is I want the illusionist to be useful, but not overly powerful - I don't want the sorcerer to think "man, I should pick up illusions if they're going to be that powerful."

That's why I'm a bit stuck: if it were a player, I'd err on the conservative side, knowing that players are more creative than me, and any limitations I set up, they'll work around. That's their job. But since I'm the DM, I'm worried I might be a bit too liberal in allowing what it can do. The thing I'm stuck on is how to handle saves, to be honest. If I'm allowing a save for every interaction, that kindof would imply at least a saving throw each round (flanking's an interaction), and then another one for each offensive action it takes (Aid Another, for instance).

I think a save each round of melee is pretty reasonable--
I think it's pretty clear that engaging in combat is 'interacting'. Illusions work best from a bit of a stand-off distance.

If you need an in game reason for it, assuming your illusionist is observing the combat from a safe distance. He won't be able to see every cut, thrust and parry of the fight to make the image react properly, hence the save. Or if he's controlling several images the job is also difficult.

[barawn]

I think a save each round of melee is pretty reasonable--
I think it's pretty clear that engaging in combat is 'interacting'. Illusions work best from a bit of a stand-off distance.

I think that's what I'm leaning towards. Seems pretty fair. He'll get around 3-6 rounds of combat or so, maybe a bit more.

Couple that with a smoky, hazy wall for cover, and that's far more help than he's been before.

[Wippit Guud]

Oh, I've had some fun with illusions... with the right DM, they can be a blast.

One good one I managed to pull off: two 'angels' showed up to bring justice to my character's just-found father. Being that I just found him, and now these guys wanted to kill him, I was a tad upset. So, I created the illusion of a giant sphere of fire engulfing them and me, and told them that if they don't stop trying to kill my father, I was going to leave them in this demi-plane of fire. So, the angels tried to teleport back to the inn. Since they were in the inn anyways, they stayed right where they were. They assume they were stuck, and decided to try to talk things over.


Course, then there's all ungodly-huge level 20 characters who walked into the dragons lair and they all redied actions to cast a bunch of spells when they saw it... cue illusion of the dragon... bye bye a bunch of first-kill spells...

[Raum]

Major image specifically says that the figment disappears when hit, unless you make it react properly - but that seems, um, silly, considering there's no resistance on a strike, so unless you have it split in two, it ain't reacting properly. So I'd basically say "if opponent hits AC 10 (plus size modifier), it either disappears, or the opponent disbelieves the illusion (or gets a +20 on another check to disbelieve it )".I'd generally assume the illusionist is making it react "properly" as long as he is concentrating on the spell. Once he ceases concentrating it no longer moves and will disapear if struck within those last three rounds. As for reacting properly, that could include anything from dodging to having a limb hacked off or even "dying".


The other problem might've been brought up elsewhere, but I've never found answers: if an illusion isn't disbelieved, and it's of a combatant, I'd rule that it provides a flanking bonus, but I'm curious what others would think. RAW you have to threaten to flank. Since Major Image can't threaten, it can't flank.


I might even rule that it can Aid Another in combat, since all Aiding Another is is interfering with, or distracting an opponent, although I wouldn't know how to handle the attack roll there.RAW requires a standard action to aid another so the illusion can't...the illusionist could, but he'd have to quit concentrating on the illusion.


There's also the question of whether or not Minor Image could be used rather than Major Image.With some creativity it could be...some hazards don't require more than sight and sound.

An illusory pit makes a decent barrier as long as it's believed. A falling / fallen tree will provide concealment. Fogs could also be duplicated with Minor Image. A variety of illusory swarms might provide either a temporary distraction or a hazard to be avoided. Illusionary walls have been mentioned, you could also simply create illusionary obstacles (caltrops, rocks, broken ground, etc) to force those failing their save to treat the ground as difficult terrain.

Moving up to Major Image, you can create duplicates of the opponent's leader(s) and have them issue conflicting orders. Images of the opponents' allies attacking each other (works best with groups of disparate creatures). Images of allies being easily slaughtered by the PCs may be demoralizing. Even images of allies "successfully" attacking PC wizards may get the real opponents to concentrate on less squishy PCs.

Hope those ideas help!

[Ditto]

I'm curious about the question mentioned on the last page, the converse of darkness: Would illusory light provide illumination until disbelieved? Nothing in the description specifically bars it, and fire is an example where it just doesn't exist unless it's giving off light...

[Grey Paladin]

You should also remember that many spells recuire line of sight, that illusions block.

[Weasel of Doom]

When casting the the illusions shout something at your enemies like i have allies you will never defeat just as a huge dragon comes roaring out the sky. Another interesting thing is that major image includes thermal illusions so they would feel the heat from the flames but could they think they were burned, i wouldnt allow but?

[martyboy74]

I'm curious about the question mentioned on the last page, the converse of darkness: Would illusory light provide illumination until disbelieved? Nothing in the description specifically bars it, and fire is an example where it just doesn't exist unless it's giving off light...
The real question is, what do you see if no one knows what's in there?

[Aximili]

I'm curious about the question mentioned on the last page, the converse of darkness: Would illusory light provide illumination until disbelieved? Nothing in the description specifically bars it, and fire is an example where it just doesn't exist unless it's giving off light...
I would say no. Ilusion can fool the eyes in two ways:
The first one is by fooling the mind directly, and there is no reason you should see better in darkness due to an Illusion that's just in your head.

The second is just creating an image that the eyes capture. This one is left open for interpretation. The rules don't especify how this image is formed. To me, since the description mentions nothing about being able to shed light, the images are formed simply of colors. That way, they reflet light but do not shed it. That would mean you cannot create an image of a torch realistically. You could make the fire, but it wouldn't shine.

There is a way to go around this though. If you can see the area around the illusory fire (either it's already bright or you have darkvision), you could make stuff vary slightly in color brightness and make their shadows dance, just as if there was fire there. You cannot create light to see something you couldn't see before. You can create the illusion of stuff you already see.

ps:That opens the possibility of creating an exact illusory replica of the room you are in, in case you have darkvision but your comrades don't. Of course, it would be much easier to just light a torch.

[martyboy74]

So what, if there's a dark room, and you have an illusory lantern, it stops lighting everything as soon as you couldn't normally see? That would be interesting to see.

[Raum]

Both Minor Image and Major Image are Figments. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. Also, figments deceive the senses not the mind (Phantasms and Patterns decieve the mind).

So you won't be able to make a dark room light with a figment. You can't directly make a light room dark either, though you may be able to hide the light source. I emphasize "may" because it causes a paradox...you need light to see the wall (illusory) which is hiding the light so you can't see the illusion meaning the light isn't hidden...gah. It's easier to say you can't make a room dark with a figment.

[Aximili]

So what, if there's a dark room, and you have an illusory lantern, it stops lighting everything as soon as you couldn't normally see? That would be interesting to see.
Yes. But the lantern itself wouldn't light anything, you could simply create the illusion of the stuff that you can see. However, this would not work in a completely dark room, because the illusion itself can only reflect light and not shed it. So... yes, my idea is completely invalid. You even if you could see, and you created an illusion inside a dark room, the ilusion would not be visible.

[Lo-Alrikowki]

Hmm, how about using the major image to make an ally look a lot more intimidating? Even turning a peasant into the illusion of a heavily armed knight can be effective, and that way the illusion won't necessarily be dispelled even if the do hit. Or how about the reverse of making illusionary ground over a hole? Cast a spell that makes the illusion of a Deep Pit Filled With Pointy Objects (tm) over otherwise clear ground. Illusionary caltrops are good too, as only a loony will step on a caltrop to find out if it's real. In the mean time, they have to go at half speed to avoid stepping on the illusion, so they don't get disbelief saves.

[Aximili]

Hmm, how about using the major image to make an ally look a lot more intimidating? Even turning a peasant into the illusion of a heavily armed knight can be effective, and that way the illusion won't necessarily be dispelled even if the do hit.
Unfortunately, in D&D physical appearance have no influence on your ability to intimidate. An unarmed peasant has the same intimidate modifier as an armed and armored knight with no ranks in intimidate.

A reasonable DM would make it different.

[barawn]

As for reacting properly, that could include anything from dodging to having a limb hacked off or even "dying".

None of the Images can provide substance, so no matter what, the attacker would likely know something's wrong. RAW gives an AC for an figment (10+size modifier) so I don't think 'dodging' counts. If you hit, you hit, and unless someone was clever (Mirror Imaged version of a combatant), there is no way to 'react properly' to a club going straight through you, for instance.


RAW you have to threaten to flank. Since Major Image can't threaten, it can't flank.

I've seen this elsewhere, but it's not clear to me. Got any source that says that a figment can't threaten?

Threaten, in the SRD, is:


Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space.

which a figment can do. It just can't do damage, but it certainly can attack. You just make the image attack. The description for the Figment subschool just says that it's "useless for attacking them directly." I can see how someone might interpret that as saying "no flank", but flanking isn't directly attacking, so I don't think it's anywhere near clear.

[barawn]

Hmm, how about using the major image to make an ally look a lot more intimidating?

The Images are all figments. You can't use a figment to make something look like something else (it's right in the SRD description of the Figment subschool).

It's amazing how many people miss that part.

[Gamebird]

The Images are all figments. You can't use a figment to make something look like something else (it's right in the SRD description of the Figment subschool).

It's amazing how many people miss that part.

Yeah, but the funny thing is that you can make an empty space look occupied, or make a wall look like a door, or make the air over someone's head look like it contains a rain cloud that's dumping on them. So figments DO make something look like something else. I have trouble understanding what the writers meant when they said a figment can't make something look like something else.

[Raum]

I've seen this elsewhere, but it's not clear to me. Got any source that says that a figment can't threaten?I don't have access to the SRD at the moment, but I believe the spell description specifically says it can't attack. If it can't attack, it can't threaten or flank.

I'll look up the specific reference this evening.

[barawn]

I don't have access to the SRD at the moment, but I believe the spell description specifically says it can't attack. If it can't attack, it can't threaten or flank.

Nope. Spell description: (silent image)


This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

The Figment subschool just says


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.

It just says they can't cause damage, not that they can't attack. The "useless for attacking creatures directly" part doesn't say anything about causing indirect effects (like flanking).

I don't understand the argument that a Figment can't take an action, either. The caster can make them appear to take an action, clearly, so the question is whether or not people think the appearance of an action would be enough for, say, Aid Another in combat.

I can't figure out whether or not it would be too powerful to allow that. Given sufficient bonuses to the disbelief check, it might be okay.

[barawn]

I have trouble understanding what the writers meant when they said a figment can't make something look like something else.

Me too. Hence the reason I'm asking for advice as to what other DMs would allow/disallow.

[SpiderBrigade]

Yeah, but the funny thing is that you can make an empty space look occupied, or make a wall look like a door, or make the air over someone's head look like it contains a rain cloud that's dumping on them. So figments DO make something look like something else. I have trouble understanding what the writers meant when they said a figment can't make something look like something else.It's a pretty fine line, there. In the rain cloud example, you're making it appear that there's something there, that isn't. Sure, technically you're making air look like something else, but personally I think that's nitpicky - in this case, "the air" counts as nothingness. You're making a rain cloud appear.

The door in the wall example is harder, but you could argue that you're making a door appear slightly in front of the wall, or whatever. It's semantics, really. "I make a door appear to be there" rather than "I disguise this section of wall as a door." You're not making empty space look like an object, the empty space isn't a "thing." What it means is you can't make an orc look like a dragon. You can make an image of a dragon, but unless the orc hides behind it (or is invisible) you'll still see him there.

Now, I'd argue that with really really careful planning, one could use a figment to achieve the given goal of making a party member look scarier: you'd create the image of something big and scary, and the person would hide inside of it. The problem is making it move in concert with the person, which is difficult or impossible, I'd say. The best trick would probably be an invisible fighter in the same square as a same-size illusory monster, attacking at the same time. The victim woudl still get a save, to realize that the illusion isn't actually hitting them, but I think I'd ad hoc a penalty, since they are getting hit - it'd be harder to notice that the illusory axe isn't precisely lined up with the actual, invisible axe.

But man, what a lot of work to go to when you could just use an actual disguise spell.

[Indon]

Yeah, but the funny thing is that you can make an empty space look occupied, or make a wall look like a door, or make the air over someone's head look like it contains a rain cloud that's dumping on them. So figments DO make something look like something else. I have trouble understanding what the writers meant when they said a figment can't make something look like something else.

I'd rule that figments can't emulate many transmutation-type effects, among other things.

For instance, you could not use an image spell to make it look like you were polymorphed, enlarged, etc. You could use it to make it look like you casted a summoning spell (the summon being the illusion), though.

[Emperor Tippy]

How figments work (IMO), is that they can't change an object/creature.

So I couldn't use major image to change my hair and skin color BUT I could use major image to create (in the exact same location as me and only slightly larger than me) an image of what I would look like with a different skin color/hair color.

Basically, figments can't be attached to a creature or object but illusions and glamors can be.

[barawn]

How figments work (IMO), is that they can't change an object/creature.

So I couldn't use major image to change my hair and skin color BUT I could use major image to create (in the exact same location as me and only slightly larger than me) an image of what I would look like with a different skin color/hair color.

Basically, figments can't be attached to a creature or object but illusions and glamors can be.

See, that's something I wouldn't allow - that's a glamer, not a figment. My basic rule on the Images is that they can't overlay something real, because people would notice the real thing inside of the fake thing. Want to make a fake door in a wall? Create an entirely new wall a few feet out from the real one.

(Hence the reason there's a custom 2nd level spell Disguise Other that I allow players to use).

[Emperor Tippy]

But why. You can't see through any of the illusion spells (Without a will save at least).

In your example, I'm not modifying the wall to appear to have a door, I'm creating the figment of a door 1 nanometer in front of the wall.

Same with using it to disguise your self. I'm not creating an illusion to change how I look, I'm creating a figment that just happens to be 1 nanometer, or a similarly insignificant distance, away from my skin in all directions. That figment happens to look like me but that doesn't matter.

Basically, a glamor is fixed to a creature/object. So a glamor to change your skin, to say green, would be cast on you and stay with you however much you move and wherever you go until the spell ends.

A figment is created in the thin air and doesn't move with you. It is fixed to that specific area.

[barawn]

But why. You can't see through any of the illusion spells (Without a will save at least).

Because the number of slip ups that could happen with an illusion on top of something real makes it a guarantee that a viewer would be presented with proof that it isn't real.

An "image on top of a wall"? Figments can't provide depth, so it certainly won't look like a normal door - any crack in the door won't have a proper depth shadow. It'll look like a flat image on top of a wall. Hence the reason why the Looney Tunes 'drawing of a door on top of a wall' doesn't work in reality.

Layering an image on top of a person to disguise one's self? You won't be able to make the image move exactly the way you move, especially since you won't be able to see it.

In a really really restricted sense, I might allow it, but in general, it's "no illusions on top of things."

[SpiderBrigade]

...where does it say figments cannot provide depth? Not seeing that.

[Emperor Tippy]

Yeah, you can create depth in 2D. Just look at video games, or movies.

[Raum]

Nope. Spell description: (silent image)Yep, I misremembered, it's under the description of the Figment subschool.


The Figment subschool just says
"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."

It just says they can't cause damage, not that they can't attack. The "useless for attacking creatures directly" part doesn't say anything about causing indirect effects (like flanking).You didn't finish quoting the whole paragraph...in whole it states "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."


I don't understand the argument that a Figment can't take an action, either. The caster can make them appear to take an action, clearly, so the question is whether or not people think the appearance of an action would be enough for, say, Aid Another in combat.The caster can certainly make it appear to act as long as he's concentrating on the image, but Aid Another (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#aidAnother) requires making an attack roll which a) the image doesn't have a BAB to roll with (the caster does, but that's the caster's action) and b) figments are "useless for attacking" anyway.

[Raum]

Because the number of slip ups that could happen with an illusion on top of something real makes it a guarantee that a viewer would be presented with proof that it isn't real.

An "image on top of a wall"? Figments can't provide depth, so it certainly won't look like a normal door - any crack in the door won't have a proper depth shadow. It'll look like a flat image on top of a wall. Hence the reason why the Looney Tunes 'drawing of a door on top of a wall' doesn't work in reality.I'd agree with this as long as "real" is referring to mobile objects, but images on imobile surfaces can look very real through tricks of perspective. Check out some of Julian Beever's (http://www.thegreenhead.com/sidewalk-art/sa-2.jpg) sidewalk art for examples. Expand on those with a genius level illusionist going directly from mental picture to figment without needing art supplies as an intermediary. It's how I envision illusionary pits looking/working.


Layering an image on top of a person to disguise one's self? You won't be able to make the image move exactly the way you move, especially since you won't be able to see it.I agree. You need Glamers such as Disguise Self for this...Figments won't work.

[SpiderBrigade]

No, I'm serious, where does it say that figments have to be 2d? None of the spell descriptions say this, nor does the segment on the Illusion school.

Edit: just for the record, yes, I agree that figments cannot be used for disguise. It says right in the description that they can't. But I do feel that "there is a door here" does not count as "disguising the wall."

[Emperor Tippy]

I wasn't talking using one to disguise you while you are moving. But say making you appear to be a tree, that a figment could do.

Sorry if I didn't explain it well.


And you can have real fun with with Permanent Image. At level 20 you get 220 cubic feet of space that you can make appear like anything you want.

[Raum]

They aren't 2D as long as they're in open space. An illusory pit on solid ground would have to be 2D though in order to meet the Figment requirement of being "unable to make something seem to be something else".

Edit: Which also means you can't use one to make yourself look like a tree. :)

[Emperor Tippy]

That isn't what we are talking about Raum. You can give a 2D picture depth and make it appear 3D. IF you can do it on paper in RL or on the computer screen then you can do it with a figment.

As for a tree, its just a 2D image that has been curved around.


This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.



And how the spell si worded it can create 3D images anyway.

[Raum]

Not sure how it's different, though I did emphasize a situation where it would need to be 2D. To clarify my statement and specify the 3D usage, image spells affect a three dimensional area (10' cubes). Inside open space, or even around objects (concealing rather than changing), within the affected area, the illusion is three dimensional.

The pit example I used where 2D is required is simply because you can't make a floor appear to be a pit (changing it's appearance) but you can use perspective tricks (concealing the floor) to make it look like there is a pit. To put it simply, the 3D area can't extend inside another object, only around or over them.

[barawn]

but images on imobile surfaces can look very real through tricks of perspective.

That's because from a distance, your eyes need perspective because parallax can't help you - your depth perception relies on monocular cues only. Close up (10' away or so), binocular vision takes over, and all those perspective tricks fail.

I'd certainly let a trick like a fake door on a flat surface or pit on a flat ground work from, say, 30' away or so. But from 10', or 5'? No way.

[Emperor Tippy]

It can be done barawn. Videogames do it all the time. Creating depth with these spells is easy.

And hwo the spells are actually worded you could create waht apepars to be a bottomless pit right in front of you. Or make it look like you are at a beach looking out over the ocean.

[barawn]

It can be done barawn. Videogames do it all the time. Creating depth with these spells is easy.

I disagree. Videogames don't fool the eye - you know they're flat surfaces. That's why so many people work on stereoimaging to give real depth to displays. Within about 10 feet, the only way to give depth to something in such away that people, from any angle, will see it as depth, is for it to have depth.

This is the basic problem I'm having with the spells - some people are stricter with the spells ("no threaten, no action") but those restrictions aren't really backed up by RAW. Other people allow just about anything, limited by the imagination of the caster and what the DM will allow.

Normally I'd be fine with that - except that doesn't work in this case, since the "I'll let it happen because it's cool" factor doesn't apply.

[Raum]

barawn, while I think I've successfully supported my case for figments not being able to threaten I will concede that the rules aren't as clear as they could be. As for the illusion taking other actions though, I don't think that leaves any doubt. The illusionist uses a standard action to keep concentrating on the illusion. Giving the illusion an action essentially removes that requirement and allows the caster to take an additional "virtual" action through the illusion. The aid another action used as an example above is even more clear, it requires attributes (an attack bonus) which the illusion simply doesn't have.

[Overlard]

I've found the best way to get illusions to work in combat is to make sure your foes don't want to interact with them. A swarm of shadows or spectres is intimidating to just about anyone - who's going to go toe-to-toe with them unless you're wearing ghost touch armour and a ghost touch weapon? If you attack them (either in melee or from range), and the weapon goes straight through them, that's not very suspicious, even if they don't react. And the best part? It can be achieved through a silent image as the shadows don't make any sound, and no-one will want to get close enough to take their temperature.

With a major image, a line of whirring blades isn't going to be closely examined. No-one's gonna want to get too close to a wall of flame either. I once trapped a few hobgoblins in a cage made of fire. They didn't want to touch the bars, which delayed them for a couple of rounds while the party archers got into a position to pick them off. Another time I made stone walls appear round a group of enemies. The only way they could see to get out was a long 5ft wide corridor, which they quickly started running down. The sorcerer was waiting at the end with a lightning bolt.

The image spells are great for delay tactics, funnelling or redirecting enemies and causing them to make mistakes. I think that an illusionist combined with a conjurer is an extremely potent combination.

[barawn]

The image spells are great for delay tactics, funnelling or redirecting enemies and causing them to make mistakes. I think that an illusionist combined with a conjurer is an extremely potent combination.

I think the problem I'm coming across is that most of the suggestions tend to be of the "great and dramatic effect" type, and I don't want an NPC to have that large an effect. That's why I liked the idea of a flanking and Aiding combat illusion, because it definitely would have a benefit, but it'd be minor. But I'm not sure how many times I'd have to have a saving throw made in order to balance the spell.


The illusionist uses a standard action to keep concentrating on the illusion. Giving the illusion an action essentially removes that requirement and allows the caster to take an additional "virtual" action through the illusion.

He can do that anyway, though, if it's a mobile illusion - clearly the caster can make the illusion move on his turn, and clearly he can make it appear to take an action.

As for the attributes part (an attack roll) - that's part of the reason why I asked. I figured, following the lead of the figment's AC (10+size modifier), an attack bonus of 0 would make sense.

[Raum]

My only real objections are I don't think RAW supports using figments for that and spellcasters, in general, don't need additional power.

Having said that, I don't think it'd be overpowered if it could simulate limited actions effectively (certainly not as powerful as other legitimate spells) and I wouldn't object to strenuously to a DM houseruling it to do so. Have you considered giving the NPC a homebrew item or feat to make illusions more effective than normal?

[Overlard]

I think the problem I'm coming across is that most of the suggestions tend to be of the "great and dramatic effect" type, and I don't want an NPC to have that large an effect. That's why I liked the idea of a flanking and Aiding combat illusion, because it definitely would have a benefit, but it'd be minor. But I'm not sure how many times I'd have to have a saving throw made in order to balance the spell.
The benfits don't have to be numerical or add to your PC's to hit rolls etc. Use the illusions to provide the PCs with opportunities they may not already have, or delays to allow them to regroup.

There are spells (non-core I think) with a sole function to specifically make someone flat-footed, or provide a flank. Duplicating them with an image spell gets a little dodgy.


He can do that anyway, though, if it's a mobile illusion - clearly the caster can make the illusion move on his turn, and clearly he can make it appear to take an action.

As for the attributes part (an attack roll) - that's part of the reason why I asked. I figured, following the lead of the figment's AC (10+size modifier), an attack bonus of 0 would make sense.
I think too many people think of illusions as static holograms. The spellcaster is concentrating on them to make them move, react etc. If someone attacks an illusionary foe and fails his will save, then he simply thinks he missed. Whether this is due to the illusion seeming dodging out of the way, or the attacker presuming he saw things wrong in the heat of battle is up to the DM's description.

[barawn]

The benfits don't have to be numerical or add to your PC's to hit rolls etc. Use the illusions to provide the PCs with opportunities they may not already have, or delays to allow them to regroup.

In general, I've tried that, but in general they don't really need significant additional help - plus tactics-wise, I don't want to be guiding them. I want them to handle that.

Of course, it didn't help that most of their opinion of him started when they got involved with large amounts of undead, and divinations and illusions don't exactly do much versus undead.


Have you considered giving the NPC a homebrew item or feat to make illusions more effective than normal?

That's a really, really good idea, actually. Makes sense, considering how (intentionally) limited he is.

[Raum]

Depending on your plans for the NPC and how long you expect him to be with the party, you might even consider making a PrC for him. Limiting the PrC to Illusion and Divination would give a reason for his access to only two schools (and probably reason enough for PCs not to want the class) while gaining new illusion or divination abilities each level would allow you to keep him interesting and useful as he levels up. As a PrC it also wouldn't burn feats or need an item the PCs might "aquire".

However, it may not be worth it if the NPC will only be used a limited amount of time.