How do I illusionist?

[Reprimand]

So I've always wanted to play an evil illusionist who just destroys peoples lives for a living.

It occurs to me I don't really understand the mechanics though.

So for example you create a silent image, when do they take a will save? automatically? interacting with it? What is disbelief? What is considered "interacting" ?

I basically need an FAQ for illusions because just reading the PHB isn't cutting it.

Also nightmare spinner looks super fun. How can I get the most out of it?

[Zarrgon]

S
So for example you create a silent image, when do they take a will save? automatically? interacting with it? What is disbelief? What is considered "interacting" ?

The rules are a bit vague here. But ''interacting'' is more then just looking at an illusion. For example, if a character walks into a room and sees an illusionary table...they don't get a save.

Any character can always study something carefully and get a save. Normally as DM I only count a spot/search/perception check to count as ''study''.

And no figment illusion alters physics, so anything (not) set on the table will just fall to the floor as soon as someone lets go.

[Reprimand]

The rules are a bit vague here. But ''interacting'' is more then just looking at an illusion. For example, if a character walks into a room and sees an illusionary table...they don't get a save.

Any character can always study something carefully and get a save. Normally as DM I only count a spot/search/perception check to count as ''study''.

And no figment illusion alters physics, so anything (not) set on the table will just fall to the floor as soon as someone lets go.

I see. What about spells like shadow conjuration, shades, shadow evocation? What does x% real mean? I've read the section of the handbook that talks about illusions but it's still pretty confusing.

[Rakoa]

I see. What about spells like shadow conjuration, shades, shadow evocation? What does x% real mean? I've read the section of the handbook that talks about illusions but it's still pretty confusing.

To my understanding, a spell that is X% real will still influct X% of it's usual damage if the victim succeeds it's save to realize it's an illusion. So a Fireball Shadow Evocation at CL12 and 50% real will inflict 12d6 damage on a failed Will save, 6d6 on a successful one (unless the target also succeeds a reflex save, I think).

[Telonius]

The "x% real" refers to what happens when a target makes its save. To take it right from the Shadow Conjuration description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowConjuration.htm):


Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things, though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength.

Any creature that interacts with the conjured object, force, or creature can make a Will save to recognize its true nature.

Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless the affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth (20%) damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow conjuration’s level (4th) rather than the spell’s normal level. In addition, any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not. Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them.

Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it’s recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses. Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature’s damage is one-fifth (20%) normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.) Furthermore, the shadow creature’s AC bonuses are one-fifth as large.

A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms.

Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.

So basically, if you fail your save against Shadow Conjuration, the illusion affects you as though it were a real thing. If you make the save, you only take 1/5 the damage. (This gets kind of amusing when you look at a theoretical build like the Killer Gnome, which ends up as over 100% real. Fail the save, and you take 100% of the damage. Make the save, and you take 110%).

[GreatDane]

WoTC wrote some articles about illusions that are pretty much mandatory reading for anyone wanting to play an illusionst:

Part One (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a)
Part Two (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a)
Part Three (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a)
Part Four (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a)

For your specific questions:

So I've always wanted to play an evil illusionist who just destroys peoples lives for a living.
Unrelated to illusions, but I'm not sure how this makes you a living unless you take their stuff afterward or get paid to do it.


So for example you create a silent image, when do they take a will save? automatically? interacting with it? What is disbelief? What is considered "interacting" ?
These are covered in-depth in the above articles, but here's the short version. A will save is received when the character touches the figment or takes more than a passing glance at it. In the first case, the save is automatically successful; in the second, such as when the character in question is taking time to examine the room, the character receives a Will save and does not notice that the object is illusory. Will (disbelief) means that a successful save causes the character to realize that the object is an illusion. (Actually, these definitions are in the PHB.)

[nedz]

To be honest a lot of this depends upon how your DM interprets illusions. The rules are fairly clear, but people do form their own interpretations especially about things like interaction.

For example: I was once playing a low level Bard. We encountered some Wolves in the Forest, so I cast a Silent Image of a fire to distract them; in order to buy us enough time to climb into the trees. Even though I created the effect some 30' from them the DM ruled that it had no effect because Scent :smallmad: Now if the Wolves had investigated the fire, or if I'd dumped the effect on or near to them, then maybe. This was poor DMing. Most DMs are better than this but you would be advised to talk to your DM first and sound them out.

[graeylin]

Not sure I disagree with the DM on the fire thing...

My dogs live in a house with a wood stove, going all winter. If they see flames on television, they don't do a thing. But, if I open the stove door wrong, and draw smoke into the house, within seconds, my oldest dog is heading for the far corner. She doesn't like smoke, and get nervous every time I mess up stoking the fire.

The flames, and even the heat, can burn and turn the eisenglass red, and she doesn't mind. But a whiff of smoke..

[Deophaun]

So for example you create a silent image, when do they take a will save? automatically? interacting with it? What is disbelief? What is considered "interacting" ?
Illusions have a complicated ruleset, but they are pretty definite once you get the ruleset down.

On figments and glamers, such as silent image and disguise self, simply witnessing the illusion is not enough to force a Will save. You have to interact with it, which means taking some action in regards to the illusion. This could be as simple as studying it for a round, or walking into an illusory cloud bank, or shaking hands with a hobgoblin glamered to look like a human. All of these will give Will saves.

However, that's not the only thing your illusion is vulnerable to. Proof that the illusion isn't real automatically causes disbelief, no save required. The PHB gives an example of someone falling through an illusory floor. So, with your table, if someone tried to put something on it, the object falling through the table would also constitute proof. When dealing with figments, a good general rule for an illusionist to follow is to avoid all senses that the illusion does not create. So, silent image is good for making ghosts or walls of fog and that kind of stuff, because these are pretty close to 100% visual phenomenon, and coming into contact with them won't cause the illusion to instantly fall apart. You can be a little more creative and give the fog cloud a sickly green color to further dissuade people without threatening the integrity of the illusion. However, if instead of a wall of fog, you try to make a wall of fire, the lack of heat, the smell of smoke, and even the complete absence of any sound from what should be a roaring fire can trip all sorts of triggers for automatic disbelief. (This is what major image is good for, as it can simulate those things flawlessly).

Still, keeping within the confines of sense is not a guarantee that your targets won't automatically disbelieve. Say that you're in the middle of a fight, you cast a spell, and the next thing anyone knows a demon poofs into existence and acts all menacing. Great illusion, as long as it doesn't try to attack anyone, right? Well, unfortuantely the enemy mage saw you do that, and he made his DC 18 Spellcraft check to know you were casting major image. Or, maybe he just rounded the bend and so made a DC 23 Spellcraft check to recognize the demon as the effect of a major image spell. Now he has proof. Your illusion is defeated before it even materialized as far as that spellcaster is concerned.

So the best illusions are the ones that do not call attention to themselves. They appear out of nowhere or look out of place. A permanent image of a tree standing in the middle of a forest is not going to arouse anyone's suspicions.

[Segev]

One thing that always interests me about glamers is how they interact with light and the lack thereof.

They obviously cannot shed real light, but you can have light cast by an illusory lamp create illusory light and shadow on appropriate surfaces. But can you see an illusory lamp created in an otherwise dark room, or does real light have to "bounce" off the illusion?

Imagine the following scenario: A drow with darkvision creates an illusion in a dark room of that room exactly as it looks if it were lit by lanterns hanging from the ceiling. He also creates illusions of the inhabitants of the room, though he makes himself look like a normal elf. He also fails to create illusions of certain individuals in the room.

Is this a poor man's Improved Invisibility for those certain individuals? Obviously, Darkvision-enabled characters will see them as black-and-white, unlit, while seeing the rest of the room as well-lit as the illusion makes it out to be.

But does this work? Or must there be light by which to see an illusion?

[Flickerdart]

Imagine the following scenario: A drow with darkvision creates an illusion in a dark room of that room exactly as it looks if it were lit by lanterns hanging from the ceiling. He also creates illusions of the inhabitants of the room, though he makes himself look like a normal elf. He also fails to create illusions of certain individuals in the room.
"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." None of this is allowed.

[Segev]

"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." None of this is allowed.

Er... the only one that could reasonably be argued is "making something seem something else" is making the drow look like an elf.

And in all cases, it's creating an illusion wholesale. That it happens to overlap with what is really there almost exactly is immaterial. If it's a little off, that's a possible tell, but it's not changing one thing into another and nobody could notice it being off except by examination. So they'd have to recognize that they weren't seeing their hand right where it really was. The illusory cup is in exactly the same spot as the real one, because the drow can see the real one to know where to put the illusory one. But it's an illusory cup, not an illusion on the cup itself. And both can move independently. The drow illusionist just tries not to let that happen.

[Flickerdart]

Er... the only one that could reasonably be argued is "making something seem something else" is making the drow look like an elf.

And in all cases, it's creating an illusion wholesale. That it happens to overlap with what is really there almost exactly is immaterial. If it's a little off, that's a possible tell, but it's not changing one thing into another and nobody could notice it being off except by examination. So they'd have to recognize that they weren't seeing their hand right where it really was. The illusory cup is in exactly the same spot as the real one, because the drow can see the real one to know where to put the illusory one. But it's an illusory cup, not an illusion on the cup itself. And both can move independently. The drow illusionist just tries not to let that happen.
You can justify it all you want - the end result is that you are making a lit room with a drow look like a dark room with an elf, which is not allowed.

[Segev]

You can justify it all you want - the end result is that you are making a lit room with a drow look like a dark room with an elf, which is not allowed.

No, I'm making an illusion of a lit room. The area in which I am creating this illusion is a dark room. The illusion happens to be exactly what the room would look like if it were lit, with a few details edited by the illusionist.

[Flickerdart]

No, I'm making an illusion of a lit room. The area in which I am creating this illusion is a dark room. The illusion happens to be exactly what the room would look like if it were lit, with a few details edited by the illusionist.
So if you don't consider that making something look like something else, what would count? Or did they just write a useless sentence to pad the page count?

[Pippa the Pixie]

To be honest a lot of this depends upon how your DM interprets illusions. The rules are fairly clear, but people do form their own interpretations especially about things like interaction.

What clear rules? Where do you see them?



For example: I was once playing a low level Bard. We encountered some Wolves in the Forest, so I cast a Silent Image of a fire to distract them; in order to buy us enough time to climb into the trees. Even though I created the effect some 30' from them the DM ruled that it had no effect because Scent :smallmad: Now if the Wolves had investigated the fire, or if I'd dumped the effect on or near to them, then maybe. This was poor DMing. Most DMs are better than this but you would be advised to talk to your DM first and sound them out.

As a DM I would rule the same. Fire, would not really distract wolves...short of a real fireball blasting them.

But as a player did you really think that you could make an illusion that had the effects of a mini wish? Like you make a fire and it automatically distracts monsters? Would you be fine with this ruling for your PC? ''The bad guy makes a fire 30 feet away, so your PC turns and looks at it and is distracted''.

But Scent is very big for animals. A wolf won't run towards the illusion of a steak, but they will sure run to the smell of one....

[Segev]

So if you don't consider that making something look like something else, what would count? Or did they just write a useless sentence to pad the page count?

The difference, I think, is best illustrated thusly:

If said drow, in a well-lit room, used Silent Image to make himself look like an elf, it would fail because he wouldn't be able to keep the overlay perfect.

But let's step it back a bit.

Let's just start with a well-lit room with a table surrounded by chairs. Can our drow illusionist use Silent Image to create an illusion of a vase sitting on the table? Could he create illusions of cushions on what are actually hard, wooden chairs? Obviously, somebody interacting with them would notice they're not there when they tried and failed to touch them, but equally obviously, I think, he can create these illusions. (Though please do tell me if I'm wrong, and why.)

Resetting the room to have just the table and chairs, all well-lit, can he then create an illusion of a crate such that it conceals one of the chairs? If he's a rogue/illusionist, could he create an illusion of a few decorative plants, and then hide behind some of them? Again, I believe this is doable; the Silent Image is clearly not modifying something that's present, but is overlaying it with something else.

Similarly, I think he could create an illusion of the back wall of the room being 3 feet further into the room than it is, and stand behind that.

Let's reset the room again. Just table and chairs. Can our drow create an illusion of a stone dias slightly taller and slightly bigger than the table, and have that overlay it? Realizing it ruins the illusion, he pulls the chairs out from under the table, so they're not obviously sticking into "solid stone." If he can't because that's making the table "look like something else," why could he create an illusion of the wall to cover himself? It's no different.

Reset the room again, and turn off the lights. The drow creates an illusion of a lantern on the table. What does it look like to those with Darkvision? Is it in black-and-white, or is the illusory "light" visible? Can he create the illusion of a vase next to the lantern, it by the lantern's illusory light? The illusion is of the lit vase, not illusory light creating real light.

Can he create an illusion of the surface of the table being illuminated?



Again, where I think the difference is is this: Overlaying illusions onto real things is just that - putting an intangible but visible thing in the same space (or rather, just around that space) as the real object. Move the object, and the illusion doesn't move with it, at least not automatically.

Push the table out from under the illusory stone dias, and there is a wooden table becoming visible as if coming out of a ghostly dias. Also, whatever's pushing it probably is phasing into said dias.

What I believe I'm doing is simply the same thing as putting an illusion of, say, a tree up, and then standing in said illusion. It isn't changing what I look like; it's concealing me.

The questionable thing, to me, is whether I can create an illusion of a visible and lit object without ambient light. Does light bounce off of illusions, or can illusions create their own light and thus appear illuminated when they are not?

[nedz]

As a DM I would rule the same. Fire, would not really distract wolves...short of a real fireball blasting them.

But as a player did you really think that you could make an illusion that had the effects of a mini wish? Like you make a fire and it automatically distracts monsters? Would you be fine with this ruling for your PC? ''The bad guy makes a fire 30 feet away, so your PC turns and looks at it and is distracted''.

But Scent is very big for animals. A wolf won't run towards the illusion of a steak, but they will sure run to the smell of one....

My intention was simply to stop them charging us and possibly make them wary. Their reaction was instant - they ignored the fire and ran towards us right through it. They didn't interact with the fire and scent apparently moves with the speed of light. You have to interact with an illusion to get a chance to disbelieve and even then you have to make a save.

Scent is big for animals, but so is fire.

[Duke of URRL]

The questionable thing, to me, is whether I can create an illusion of a visible and lit object without ambient light. Does light bounce off of illusions, or can illusions create their own light and thus appear illuminated when they are not?

An illusion, a figment, and at least Silent Image can not make light. The illusion of a fire does not give off any light. You can not make a glowing ball of light to read a book with a figment.

I'd say the vase was ok, but the cushions are ok as long as they are obvious.

You can hide your table and chairs in a rock illusion no problem.

A figment type illusion seen with darkvision would be black and white. The lantern giving off no light, would just look wrong the same way a ball of lava sitting on a table would look wrong.

So no, the figment illusion of a light source can't light up a room.

[Wacky89]

Specialist Illusion Wizard 2 / Master Specialist 3 / Shadowcraft Mage 5 / Incantatrix 3 / Shadowcrafter 7

Easy Metamagic & Enhanced Shadow Reality from (Dragon Mag#325)
,
That's a good base :)

[Segev]

An illusion, a figment, and at least Silent Image can not make light. The illusion of a fire does not give off any light. You can not make a glowing ball of light to read a book with a figment. I concur. I did not think otherwise, nor was I trying to.


I'd say the vase was ok, but the cushions are ok as long as they are obvious.Both should be. The cushions are sitting on the chair. Even if you don't think you can make illusory things look like they're attached to non-illusory things (which would preclude illusions of trees or walls that are connected to the ground and other walls), they should be fine.


You can hide your table and chairs in a rock illusion no problem.Agreed.


A figment type illusion seen with darkvision would be black and white. The lantern giving off no light, would just look wrong the same way a ball of lava sitting on a table would look wrong.Here's where we start to get into my question: Do you need light to see an illusion? Is an illusory fire going to cast a shadow based on the light source illuminating it? Or is it an illusion of fire, with an illusion of light that prevents it from having shadows cast upon it by its position relative to light sources?


So no, the figment illusion of a light source can't light up a room.This is explicitly NOT what I'm trying to do.

Let's say we have a dark room. I create an illusion of a bonfire. I create no other illusory effects. Is the bonfire visible without darkvision?

My hypothesis is that the non-darkvision-enabled viewer will see a fire burning in the middle of blackness.

If not, then how much light do you need to see the fire, and can you see the fire casting a shadow on the otehr side of any light source illuminating it? If you illuminate an illusory fire from one side and look at it from the other, is the fire itself beshadowed the way, say, a cloth curtain waving about like flames would be?

[Doctor Awkward]

So as you can probably tell, the rules on exactly how illusions work, as written in the PHB, are exceedingly vague and not very well thought out, hence the numerous interpretations given to you in this thread of what should and shouldn't be allowed. It's also the reason WotC had to write four entire fecking articles to attempt to clarify the situation. Articles which not everyone has read, or have read and gotten a different takeaway from it than the next person, hence the persistent confusion.

The bottom line is that all that matters is how your DM thinks illusions work.
Strictly by the most commonly agreed upon RAW interpretation, illusion is probably the second most powerful school of magic, in that it is really only limited by your creativity and imagination.
It largely comes down to what your DM thinks is an interaction. And that you are able to effectively back up your illusions with the real thing when you need to (like say, casting a Cloudkill that actually kills something, and then creating a silent image of a cloudkill spell right next to it. Virtually no sane person will want to try their luck).

[oxybe]

This is explicitly NOT what I'm trying to do.

Let's say we have a dark room. I create an illusion of a bonfire. I create no other illusory effects. Is the bonfire visible without darkvision?

My hypothesis is that the non-darkvision-enabled viewer will see a fire burning in the middle of blackness.

If not, then how much light do you need to see the fire, and can you see the fire casting a shadow on the otehr side of any light source illuminating it? If you illuminate an illusory fire from one side and look at it from the other, is the fire itself beshadowed the way, say, a cloth curtain waving about like flames would be?

I like to think of those figments as three-dimensional pictures.

Let's say you print out a picture of a bonfire. The most realistic bonfire ever. From afar or even up close, it looks like it will burn you and make delicious s'mores. But it's still a picture. Turn the light in the room out and even if it looks realistic, it doesn't shed any light. Turn on a flashlight though and you can see the life-like bonfire picture just fine.

Now, you can create ambient light to go around with that picture of a bonfire, but again: it's just a picture you've taped to the wall. Dim or turn the lights off and the "ambient light" will also go dark, just like the fire would.

Turn the lights on super-bright and your taped-on ambiance now looks weird.

Think of a figment as something akin to a mirage: it bends light in weird ways to create the image of a thing, but itself sheds no particular light or shadow.

This is why the best illusions are the ones that don't stand out. Why you create illusions that look like an object that doesn't look out of place, won't be interacted with or mimics the area minus one or two details. Silent image to a stall in a stable look empty to hide your presence, the illusion of a fog bank to block enemy line of sight or that of a rock dome might deter enemy archers from using arrows for a round or two and give the party a round or so of breathing room to collect their thoughts. Heck, a well placed illusion of a wall of stone to block an enemy path might convince them to take another path to get to you, allowing you to simply walk through the illusion and leave once they're gone.

[Zarrgon]

Let's say we have a dark room. I create an illusion of a bonfire. I create no other illusory effects. Is the bonfire visible without darkvision? My hypothesis is that the non-darkvision-enabled viewer will see a fire burning in the middle of blackness.

If not, then how much light do you need to see the fire, and can you see the fire casting a shadow on the otehr side of any light source illuminating it? If you illuminate an illusory fire from one side and look at it from the other, is the fire itself beshadowed the way, say, a cloth curtain waving about like flames would be?

I'd say a you can't see an illusionary fire in the dark, assuming the looker is something like a human. The fire gives off no light, as others have said, so it is like seeing any other object in the dark.

To see any object in the dark, you need light. The exact amount of light you'd need to see a rock or a chair in the dark.

The illusion of a fire casts no shadow. It's three dimensional so it looks the same from every angle.

[DementedFellow]

Sometimes the characters will wise up to your shenanigans and so this is where you pull out Invisible Fog Cloud. Extra points if you can somehow persist it. What this will mean is that regular folks won't see this huge cloud around you, but those who can look into magical effects will be affected by it.

Your job is befuddle and Invisible spell is definitely the way to go.

Also, your DM will grow to hate you.

Invisible Shapechange could also be fun.