Question re: silent image DMing

[Farmerbink]

I will preface this by saying two things:
1) I am a fairly new DM, and not well-versed with magic in general, much less illusion specifically.
2) I am generally not a fan of some of the more complicated uses of silent image. By text, it seems to expect me to deliberately ignore all senses other than sight for the sake of adjudication.

That said, here's the scoop. Please, be polite with your commentary, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm adjudicating this as appropriately as possible.

*****************************************
Party of 5, essentially just got ambushed by moss trolls. They saw one of the trolls in advance, and tried to sneak past using clever usage of the bard's fascinate ability. Unfortunately, he's not high enough level to fascinate the second troll, and more unfortunately, none of them saw it. Second troll attacked, initiating combat, ending fascinate.

Now, close to melee, the bard casts silent image, to create the image of a 10-foot tall wall of fire- surrounding the rear troll, and "herding" (for lack of a better word) the foremost troll away from himself.

I feel like the obvious lack of blistering heat (as a 10-foot tall wall of flame, 5 feet away from yourself would cause), and the lack of the sound and smell of burning grass and twigs (the trolls do have the scent ability), makes the image nonsensical, and thus easy to disbelieve (at best). At current, I'm planning to give them a significant bonus to their save to disbelieve and charging them a move action's worth of time to piece together the sensory evidence (or lack thereof). On the contrary, the bard is arguing that the troll's fear of fire should make them shaken and give them apenalty to their will save- consistent with the wording that the trolls are afraid of "visible" flames.

I just want to know what other experienced (or inexperienced) DMs think about the situation. Is this an appropriate and clever use if silent image, or is he trying to make the spell into more than it's supposed to be? I know where my gut instinct lies, but I want a more comprehensive perspective before I rule one way or the other. Thanks in advance for your input!

Bink

[Gritmonger]

I'd say the bonus and penalty arguments offset.

I had a similar situation with a peasant with the Magic Initiate Feat and his ability to dodge an injured Owlbear by appearing to be part of a wall. Strictly speaking, the Owlbear could probably smell him - but if the Owlbear isn't familiar with illusions, what kind of bonus is it going to get to the concept of a person being part of a wall? It ended up in a stalemate - with the Owlbear sure it could smell him and not leaving the area, but not being able to directly locate the immobile, frightened peasant behind his false wall.

So, I'd say the situation (Trolls probably know wizards can summon fire, fire is scary and dangerous to trolls) combined with the reality of it (there are no burning, smoldering embers, there is no heat) probably offset.

If nothing else, even if they do disbelieve, they could try other actions after being momentarily startled, if they suspect it is fake.

It being specifically around the rearmost troll - even on a failed save he still might try and get out, especially if it has a weapon or tool it can use to test the flame. Corralling it entirely with the flame and causing it to be reckless in its panic might have been the wrong move, versus creating it somewhere and menacing both of them with it...

[Segev]

I generaly want to err on the side of PC abilities being efficiacious, but there are just too many sense-cues with a huge wall of fire RIGHT NEXT TO ME that would tell me it's not real.

I would give them an immediate will(disbelief) check at no bonus or penalty. IF they fail, it should buy at least a round of hesitation from the troll, but any experimental test should reveal the falsehood. And after a round, I'd expect them to try something, because even failing the save, they can tell something's "off."

Illusions of Silent Image's sort are not mind-affecting, so they don't turn off the reasoning centers of one's brain. Failing to disbelieve means you can't see through it; it looks real. But if there are other strong clues, you have every reason to test it.

Especially since what usually stops one from testing "fire" is the heat; if you don't feel it, poking your hand tentatively into it until it's all the way in and you can see you're unharmed is at most a full-round action.

[Segev]

In an effort to be helpful, I'd like to offer some suggestions on ways I would have allowed, as a DM, their Silent Image to work just fine.

The most straight-forward would be to have created an image of some sort of barrier obscuring the passage of the party. A thick line of trees, a drapery of moss, or even a large but silent predator which might, at the least, give pause even to a troll.

Another possibility would be to have the party make more noise than normal, and create an illusion of more people being part of it. The trolls at least now have some fake targets they could go for before the PCs were hit, and might hesitate to attack a larger, better-armed troupe. Especially if they bear lit torches (which aren't going to have quite so obvious a heat or sound signature to be missing).

An illusion of a thick fog, along with some sort of code phrase (or just use of a language the trolls hopefully don't speak) to tell the party explicitly that it's an illusion, would probably not allow any save at all. Fog is mostly purely visual, anyway, and the other things "missing" would be hard to cognitively recognize as evidence that it's wrong. The PCs now get a save at +4 to have the illusion become see-thru, while the trolls are effectively blinded to anybody more than 5 ft. away. Even casting it in the open wouldn't tip off a non-spellcaster: what the trolls see is a guy cast a spell, and then fog appears. That's not at all unbelievable.

[Hendel]

I agree with what has been said here.

Some DM's hate illusions in general because players sometimes try and break and bend the rules in their minds. Some players feel DM's are being overly harsh when it comes to the character's ability to use illusions effectively. I personally love illusions and illusionists since 1st edition AD&D and my wonderful gnome illusionist.

Silent Image is at worst a spell that if properly used should take up a round of the enemy in deciding that it is not real and then moving on with their attack/plan. This would take the effect of them interacting with it in a way that they would be able to receive a saving throw to disbelieve it. If a troll saw the wall of illusionary fire but did not hear it or sense its thermal properties then they would be able to get a save and I would probably give them the +4 bonus as they can tell that something is wrong. When the first passes through it and others see that he was not hurt, then they would also get bonuses to disbelieve. In any event, they would loose a turn worth of actions and that could be enough for the party to get the upper hand.

As a DM I say encourage outside of the box thinking but let your players know there will be certain limitations. When I play an illusionist, I sit down with the DM and make sure that we are on the same page concerning them. WotC had a great series in Rules of the Game for 3rd edition and the articles on illusions were excellent in explaining the strengths and limitations of each of the sub-schools. For example, glammers are meant to make something look like something else. So I could use one to make myself look like a wall, but figments cannot make something look like something else but they could hide something. So I could use a figment like Silent Image to make a wall and hide behind it, but I could not make myself look like a wall as that would be a glammer, etc.

Amazing school of magic with endless possibilities if understood and used correctly by both players and DM's.

Good luck!

[Segev]

Technically, "I can't feel the heat" only gives the right to make the save, not a bonus to it.

The only way to get the +4 bonus to the save is for somebody to explicitly inform you, "That is an illusion." You immediately may make the save, and do so with a +4 bonus, but you still have to make the save. You don't automatically get to see through it just because somebody told you to. That's where the "will" part comes in.

If they interact with it in a way that reveals it to be fake, however, they don't need a save, by the RAW. So if they do decide to walk through the "fire," they know it's an illusion now and don't even have to save.


This is actually subject to possible abuse by DMs who make a classic mistake of metagaming on THEIR end. This is classic because it's a rare circumstance that the DM has a chance to do so. It's rare that his monsters shouldn't know something of immediate pertinence that they could act on without having to invoke specific dice mechancis. The hiding rogue still has a DC for the monstes' spot checks. The bluffing PC sets a DC for the NPCs' Sense Motive.

But illuions really can be as easy as just walking into them.

The trouble is, if you aren't positive that wall of fire isn't real, walking into it is not something you do lightly or eagerly. Yet, the DM knows for a fact it's not real. IF it were real, he wouldn't have his monster walk through it because the damage would be too great. But it isn't, and so having the monster walk through it, "risking" taking damage, is easy to justify.

That said, the wall of fire's lack of heat means the DM is more justified...but still, some tentativeness would be good.

And when it's upgraded to a Major Image, which feels like it's putting off heat (even though it can't do real damage)...

[Mr.Moron]

He should have made a ring of flame to hold the troll perfectly still indefinitely and solve the encounter in one action

[Farmerbink]

First of all, let me thank you all for your input so far. Seeing both sides of the issue (still from a DMing perspective) is very helpful.


And when it's upgraded to a Major Image, which feels like it's putting off heat (even though it can't do real damage)...

This is exactly why I'm hesitant to allow a silent image to be this powerful. If the only distinction between a 1st and 3rd level spell is the presence of sound, smell, heat, etc... than those things must be relevant to the 1st level spell. Otherwise, the 3rd level spell would never have needed to be written, right? Who would use major image, if silent image was just as good?

As written, unless I'm missing something, the ONLY way I can make silent image less powerful than major image is to use those other sense to bypass part of the effect of SI. Right?

[Hendel]

Major Image is inherently more powerful than Silent Image in most editions based solely on the fact that it is a 3rd level spell so the DC will be higher.

I agree with Segev that maybe a +4 bonus would not be warranted for just the lack of heat. It really comes from being presented with proof that something is an illusion. That is not just my ally saying "that is an illusion," however. It could be noting that the forest floor is not burning or that my ally passed through it unharmed. That is a DM call in my opinion so not feeling heat from a blazing wall could qualify under subjective terms from the DM and remember that illusions are VERY subjective for the most part.

On the other point I have had monsters run through a Wall of Fire knowing that is the only way for them to either escape, get to their enemies, or to stop from taking the smaller damage every round if they are on the heat side of a Wall of Fire, so I would have them also do the same with an illusion.

The basic point is that they must interact with it and even that, although a game mechanic term, is still rather subjective. As a DM if you said you were looking at the wall for a round, I would consider that interacting. If you charged through it, I would consider that interacting. If you stood 50 feet off and shot arrows through it, I would probably not consider that interacting with it, etc.

My use as an illusionist player is to distract and befuddle my enemies to gain time for me and my allies to do something like escape, set up a defense, or take out other bad guys in the meantime. I know that it will not stand the test of time and that it is a fleeting defense at best.

[DarkOne-Rob]

Hey everyone. I am the player (and RL brother) of FarmerBink who cast the spell. Just wanted to join the discussion instead of lurking.


He should have made a ring of flame to hold the troll perfectly still indefinitely...
This is exactly how I would have worded my spell description had I been starting this thread instead of FarmerBink...


...and solve the encounter in one action
...and this is (in his own words) what concerns FarmerBink about my (ab)use of the spell.

That all said, from my perspective as a player (and DM in other games), I am trying to use the spell as written and interact with the trolls' ability "Fear of Fire" as written:


Fear of Fire: (Ex) A moss troll is shaken as long as it is within 30 feet of a visible fire or an open flame of at least torch size.
Emphasis mine. I am hoping that the trolls are both shaken by the spell use, incurring a -2 on their save. If FarmerBink decides it is appropriate I am prepared for a +2 to +5 bonus on their saves due to the lack of smell, heat, and sound of the fire, but hoping for the lower end of bonuses applied.

The options mentioned in above posts are pretty good. The use of Silent Image to mimic Obscuring Mist (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/obscuringMist.html#obscuring-mist) (only better, since your allies might not be effected at all) is on the high end of what I think could ever be appropriate (since it replaces one spell for another, with certain statistics like duration changed) but is clearly within the rules. I would say it is also arguably better than the use to which I applied my spell...


Major Image is inherently more powerful than Silent Image in most editions based solely on the fact that it is a 3rd level spell so the DC will be higher...

My use as an illusionist player is to distract and befuddle my enemies to gain time for me and my allies to do something like escape, set up a defense, or take out other bad guys in the meantime. I know that it will not stand the test of time and that it is a fleeting defense at best.
This. All of this.

Thanks for your input, everyone!

[neonchameleon]

I'd give the +4 - and automatic saves; it neither sounds nor feels like a fire. The best uses of Silent Image are images that the enemy isn't really going to interact with, instead convincing them that another way will be easier, images you want your people to see through, or the mundane that people wouldn't think twice about. "I don't know if it's real but I don't want to find out". But by the wall of flame they are already finding out.

[Mr.Moron]

That all said, from my perspective as a player (and DM in other games), I am trying to use the spell as written and interact with the trolls' ability "Fear of Fire" as written:


This is the most important point I think, and a gleaming truth that just cannot be denied.

The important thing here is sticking to the text of the rules as closely as is possible without disrupting the flow of the game. Even at the point of disruption to the game really, it's the most important thing. Sure things like tension management, tone, equitable opportunities between players for engagement, the credibility of in-universe threats, and reasonable surprises are all things that exist and should be considered. However, they're so completely dwarfed in importance next to taking the most literal RAW interpretation and strict adherence to, it I'm not even sure how this is a point of contention. This is after all first and foremost a tournament-style competitive miniatures skirmish wargame you just can't be throwing curve balls like that.

[aspekt]

Trolls are notoriously stupid. But a complete lack of heat would clue one in that something was amiss

The problem with the RAW argument is as follows:

Yes a troll becomes visibly shaken at the sight of fire, actual fire. There is no reason even a stupid troll would fear fake fire. Trolls fear fire because it burns not because of its flickering light or its orange-yellow hue.

The moment the troll realizes that this is merely a flickering light of an orange-yellow hue is the moment it no longer fears it. I do not believe RAW says that the shaken state removes the sense of temperature from a wall of fire a mere 5' away. A creature may be shaken, but still feel cold air as opposed to the searing heat it would expect from a circle of flame.

This analysis would also apply to a troll's sense of hearing and smell. Meaning at this point there are 3 senses working against the illusion.

I would give the troll an unmodified save versus the illusion as there is nothing extraordinary about senses noting a lack of evidence for something existing and there is nothing in the state of shaken that harms or alters one of the basic five senses.

[DarkOne-Rob]

@Mr.Moron: Your sarcasm is not lost on me. I did not present my argument in those terms, and don't appreciate your effort to make this into a me vs. him contention moment.

As for the issue of RAW and the trolls' fear of fire - they are afraid of a torch within 30 ft. There is no way they consistently feel the heat, smell it burning, or hear it burning the pitch of the torch itself from the maximum range. I feel like my argument stands.

[Fiery Diamond]

{scrubbed}

[Segev]

Under the rules for illusions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment), which you have to scroll down just a little to get to the "saves and disbelief" subsection from where that link will take you, it explicitly states that having proof the illusion is not real means you don't need a save, and that those who have successfully disbelieved can inform others, granting them a save with a +4 bonus.

It also notes that a failed save means you fail to notice anything is amiss.

Given the rules for interacting with illusions being required to allow a save, I'd say that being near it and not feeling the heat nor hearing the crackle of the burning fuel is sufficient to grant a save. Being told "it's just an illusion" is enough to grant the save AND get the +4.

If you fail the save, however, you didn't register that you've subconsciously noticed the lack of heat and sound. Without something else to grant you another chance to save, you think it's a real fire.

Proof that it's not real could be obtained by sticking your hand in it and not getting burned, however. I would still say a DM should have any creature which failed its save (and which has reason to fear fire; this obviously doesn't apply to, say, red dragons) treat the fire as real unless he had good reason to test it. After all, would YOU test every fire you see by sticking your hand in it, just to see if it's an illusion? Or would you assume it was real without reason to believe otherwise?

[Farmerbink]

.. I would still say a DM should have any creature which failed its save (and which has reason to fear fire; this obviously doesn't apply to, say, red dragons) treat the fire as real unless he had good reason to test it. After all, would YOU test every fire you see by sticking your hand in it, just to see if it's an illusion? Or would you assume it was real without reason to believe otherwise?

That's what I'm leaning towards, at this point. RaW is definitely a desirable end goal, and the trolls are irrationally afraid of fire- it says so on their sheet. The question, to me, is more regarding the complication of their irrational fear and the fire that doesn't act like normal fire. If it were some creature unafraid of fire, they would probably immediately disbelieve (I think). But in this case, I'm not sure. At the very least, they would recoil, reflexively, before they were able to act again

[Segev]

I'd go with "gets a save, with no special bonus, due to the fire being 'wrong,'" and then, if they fail it, they act like it's real (recoiling, perhaps failing to notice the wrongness because they're too busy backpedalling). Give them another save only if they gain new reason to distrust it. There's a fight going on; unless they're spending actions studying the fire rather than fighting, they are a bit distracted.

[Farmerbink]

I'd go with "gets a save, with no special bonus, due to the fire being 'wrong,'" and then, if they fail it, they act like it's real (recoiling, perhaps failing to notice the wrongness because they're too busy backpedalling). Give them another save only if they gain new reason to distrust it. There's a fight going on; unless they're spending actions studying the fire rather than fighting, they are a bit distracted.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Of course, my brother and I can manage to fight about anything, but that's kind of life.

[DarkOne-Rob]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Of course, my brother and I can manage to fight about anything, but that's kind of life.
It's all your fault!

...I mean, um, no we don't!

...I mean, um, nevermind...

[Flickerdart]

Trolls will still attack even when presented with a real flame.

[DarkOne-Rob]

Trolls will still attack even when presented with a real flame.
Moss trolls (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/troll.html#troll,-moss) would mechanically be shaken, however.

[Telok]

Given that moss trolls are explicitly more scared of fire than other trolls (and actually more scared of fire than mummies who have real cause) I'd give a round of the shaken effect and then roll the saves next round. On the third round I might give a save with +4 as some trolls may be ignoring the illusion and there's no smoke or burning plants.

Essentially I would give one round of surprise and fear for the sudden appearance of the fire and then start saves on later rounds when the surprise wears off and nothing burns.

[Beta Centauri]

Let the player use it the way he thinks it works. This allows you not to have to really think much about it during play, and all but guarantees that the player won't feel the need to argue. The player gets their way, and the game keeps moving smoothly.

After the game, talk to the players. Ask them, particularly the bard player, what could have been different about the encounter that he would not have had to resort to that tactic. Easier? Something the bard was more able to combat with his abilities? Different stakes? Something other than just kill-or-be-killed?

What it comes down to is that players do things like this in order to have some control over how interesting the game is to them, and how interesting the game is to them has to do with how much they can contribute compared to other players (which can be different for different people), and how willing they are to deal with failure. Talking to your players will help you understand how they would like to contribute, and what kind of failure they're willing to have their characters suffer.

[Trevortni]

Fears tend to come from a part of the brain that is more basic than the reasoning parts of the brain. When the animal part of the brain says "Fire!", the reasoning part of the brain isn't even consulted unless there's a reason to do so (mere lack of sensory evidence is generally not sufficient reason).

Reasons to consider lack of sensory evidence might include:
1. Training/experience (I've encountered illusionists before; might this be one of their tricks?)
2. Actually being in the fire (Wait - how am I still alive and not in pain?)
3. What else makes sense for the monster? Does the monster have classes that might contribute, or knowledges?

Without something actively acting against the fear part of the brain, the sequence of events might go like this:

1. Fire appears out of nowhere
2. Ahhh! Fire! Run away!
3. Okay, I'm away. Ooh, and I got out of there fast enough that I wasn't even singed or felt any heat! Wait a minute - I don't feel any heat! Well, that's good; I must be far enough away to not feel it.
4. If I don't feel any heat, should I go closer to examine it and see if I feel heat at distances I would normally never get into near a fire? Of course not! I've never heard of illusions before! And that's a $%^#ing FIRE!
5. Ummm, wait a minute - I don't hear any normal fire noises. Over the sounds of a battle. That's.... weird? Maybe? Well, maybe if I wasn't in the middle of a $%^#ing FIGHT at the moment, I might make some kind of check to see if curiosity overcomes my innate fear of fire. But at the moment, I'm kind of busy.
6. Whoah, that burly fighter just threw me THROUGH the fire for some reason, and I didn't feel anything. Maybe that's not really a fire after all.

As for comparing Silent Image to Major Image, just because a given image might not be AS effective without other senses being engaged, it doesn't mean that it won't be completely ineffective - as someone else pointed out, there are different Save DCs for a reason. But more than that, the reason Major Image is a higher level than Silent Image is because it gives you more options. A Silent Image couldn't handle, for example, creating a battlefield, because the other senses, especially the sound, are significant with respect to the visual aspects. This is not so with a fire, as most creatures will stay far enough away from the sight of a fire that they can't feel the heat or hear the crackle (the well-crafted fire illusion will include the fire consuming other objects, which I think someone mentioned). The lack of heat and sound will be used not to disbelieve the fire (unless in what would otherwise be unfortunately close proximity) but to allay the creature's fears that they still haven't gotten far enough away.


Ummm. I kind of got carried away there. I think I'll have to sum it up as: Are the other senses significant to the effect being generated, as opposed to merely being normally present (especially in the context of fear)? Then they can give a bonus. Otherwise - probably not.

[daemonaetea]

Under the rules for illusions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment), which you have to scroll down just a little to get to the "saves and disbelief" subsection from where that link will take you, it explicitly states that having proof the illusion is not real means you don't need a save, and that those who have successfully disbelieved can inform others, granting them a save with a +4 bonus.

It also notes that a failed save means you fail to notice anything is amiss.

Given the rules for interacting with illusions being required to allow a save, I'd say that being near it and not feeling the heat nor hearing the crackle of the burning fuel is sufficient to grant a save. Being told "it's just an illusion" is enough to grant the save AND get the +4.

If you fail the save, however, you didn't register that you've subconsciously noticed the lack of heat and sound. Without something else to grant you another chance to save, you think it's a real fire.

Proof that it's not real could be obtained by sticking your hand in it and not getting burned, however. I would still say a DM should have any creature which failed its save (and which has reason to fear fire; this obviously doesn't apply to, say, red dragons) treat the fire as real unless he had good reason to test it. After all, would YOU test every fire you see by sticking your hand in it, just to see if it's an illusion? Or would you assume it was real without reason to believe otherwise?

Seconding this. Noticing something is wrong is what grants the save. You don't get to make the save to notice it's an illusion automatically, usually you have to have something tip you off first, or interact with it in some way, or specifically spend an action studying it. In this case, the benefit the trolls are getting from their Scent ability is that they get to make the save immediately, instead of needing to wait. I'd say noticing a lack of heat is more the result of that Will save - that's the sort of thing they realize when they make their save that clues them in and makes them realize what's up.

Then, of course, if they fail their save they still think it's a fire. And I'm always surprised at people that want to mitigate that somehow - "Why do they think it's fire if it's not hot, or doesn't smell, or etc"? In a universe with magic, I'd think most people eventually just accept a certain level of unexplainability.

[johnbragg]

Then, of course, if they fail their save they still think it's a fire. And I'm always surprised at people that want to mitigate that somehow - "Why do they think it's fire if it's not hot, or doesn't smell, or etc"? In a universe with magic, I'd think most people eventually just accept a certain level of unexplainability.

Maybe they've got some metamagic feat, or it's some wierd homebrew spell. Do you want to be the troll to fin out?

[aspekt]

As for the issue of RAW and the trolls' fear of fire - they are afraid of a torch within 30 ft. There is no way they consistently feel the heat, smell it burning, or hear it burning the pitch of the torch itself from the maximum range. I feel like my argument stands.

And you sincerely believe that there is no difference in the experience of seeing a torch at 30' and having a flaming circle surround you at 5' with no other evidence of it actually being a fire?

I think at this point the discussion is over and you just want to 'win' now.

[Farmerbink]

Then, of course, if they fail their save they still think it's a fire. And I'm always surprised at people that want to mitigate that somehow - "Why do they think it's fire if it's not hot, or doesn't smell, or etc"? In a universe with magic, I'd think most people eventually just accept a certain level of unexplainability.

the trick here, to me, is that the failed save means they don't consciously know why they felt like something was off. It's not that the troll is like "no, seriously. It's a fire. JUST KUZ ITS NOT HOT DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT A FIRE!" He's more like "CRAP, CRAP, WHATS GOING ON? WHY FOR FIRES??"

[Raven777]

Seconding this. Noticing something is wrong is what grants the save. You don't get to make the save to notice it's an illusion automatically, usually you have to have something tip you off first, or interact with it in some way, or specifically spend an action studying it.

This needs to be bolded, because this is super important. This is what makes images work. The developers, both 3.5 and Pathfinder, have stated before that "interacting" with an illusion should involve either it directly affecting you or you spending an action of some kind. If everybody gets an immediate save every time they are confronted by an Image, compounded by bonuses, the spell line just becomes a waste of casting time.

[aspekt]

This needs to be bolded, because this is super important. This is what makes images work. The developers, both 3.5 and Pathfinder, have stated before that "interacting" with an illusion should involve either it directly affecting you or you spending an action of some kind. If everybody gets an immediate save every time they are confronted by an Image, compounded by bonuses, the spell line just becomes a waste of casting time.

I think that does nail it.

[johnbragg]

This needs to be bolded, because this is super important. This is what makes images work. The developers, both 3.5 and Pathfinder, have stated before that "interacting" with an illusion should involve either it directly affecting you or you spending an action of some kind. If everybody gets an immediate save every time they are confronted by an Image, compounded by bonuses, the spell line just becomes a waste of casting time.

So my groups have been shouting "I disbelieve!" at our DMs for 15 years now for no reason?

[Scorponok]

In case anyone was curious, they took out the "interacting" part in 5th Ed, so now it's just a save immediately for any foe seeing it.

Also, keep in mind that the fire illusion was very useful in THIS case, where you have a specific monster who is much more afraid of fire than other creatures. This will not be the case if the PCs run into another monster who is NOT a troll. Say, a group of bugbears that all are carrying some form of fire resistant item. Or a group of goblins high on a narcotic that suppresses their fear of getting hurt. I'd personally let the player interpret it his way, but remember to reduce the XP of the encounter if the encounter can be beaten by a single spell. You don't want to punish the player for creative thinking, but the 3rd or 4th time they use the same spell to do this, it's no longer being creative. And enemies should start getting wise to it.

[Hendel]

...but remember to reduce the XP of the encounter if the encounter can be beaten by a single spell.A little bit off topic but I would never do this. There are many spells that can beat a single encounter. That does not make the encounter any harder or easier, just the characters were apparently more prepared.

In this specific case the illusion will probably not "beat" the encounter, rather help to control the battlefield a little more effectively. You still need to put down the trolls somehow or run away, so do not expect the illusion to make them drop dead (unless it is my favorite, Phantasmal Killer).

I am not taking away from Scorponok any of his valid points, just saying that I set an encounter and reward it the same way regardless of how the party overcame it.

[aspekt]

Ya I think the bard in this case did fine and deserves the full xp from the encounter. I'm not clear what purpose would be served by reducing it except to encourage combat over playing in smart and imaginative ways.

[Chronos]

If you were on a distant hilltop and created a "wall of fire" around you to protect your location, the trolls seeing the fire on the hilltop would get no save: Sight is the only sense they'd expect to have of it, and it looks real.

Being close enough that they ought to feel some heat, but not feeling it, probably counts as "interacting", and thus they get a save. Multiple senses being missing (the feel of the heat, the sound of crackling, the smell of smoke) should probably give them some circumstance bonus on the save. But they should also have their stated reaction to seeing flames, which will partially offset this circumstance bonus. If they make their save, then they lose the penalty from seeing flames, because they know they're not actually seeing flames.

[Segev]

I disagree that multiple senses missing should give them bonuses on the save, unless the primary sense is missing (in which case they probably don't notice the illusion at all).

Having 1+ senses missing that should be sensable is what grants the save, it counts as "interaction." Having 2+ senses missing doesn't count as more interaction than 1 missing.

The only thing that grants a bonus is being explicitly told by somebody else, "It's an illusion." (Maybe not in those exact words, but the specific knowledge must be communicated.")

[Heliomance]

This has always been my problem with Silent Image. I've played a dedicated Illusionist before, a Killer Gnome, and I had great fun. But I barely ever used Silent Image (except to fuel Shadowcraft Mage) because I could never think of anything to make that wouldn't be obviously an illusion because of the lack of sound etc.

[Segev]

I barely ever used Silent Image because I could never think of anything to make that wouldn't be obviously an illusion because of the lack of sound etc.

Yeah, it's an issue. The best illusions with it tend to be static objects: tables, chairs, that the wall is 3 feet further into the room than it is, a copse of trees to hide your party in, fog, still water...

Basically, it's a terrain-editing spell more than anything else. Without being nearly so potent as Hallucinatory Terrain, since it just edits in a few things.

[Flickerdart]

My favourite use is moving a trap - enemies will leap over the innocuous 5ft pit, only to land right into the actual 5ft pit on the other side of the illusion.

[P.F.]

Trying to frighten a fire-fearing creature by creating an illusion of fire is fine, but using silent image to cordon off a monster by creating a directly adjacent illusory wall of flames is pushing the limits of what the spell does.

Being that close, I would grant an immediate saving throw. If it fails the save, it is shaken and behaves as if there were in fact a wall of fire; if not, it is free to ignore the flames.

I'm not sure that the obvious not-fireness of the illusion would grant anything beyond a save, but I might give it a +2 circumstance bonus as the illusion holds up so poorly in close proximity. Had the illusion been farther away, the monster would have first been shaken, taking a -2 fear penalty to the save if it ever got a save at all.

The difference between silent image and major image is not the save DC, although the DC of major image is higher, on account of its higher level. Let's find out what the difference is, RAW:


like silent image, except that sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect.

A major image of a wall of flames would not grant a saving throw unless it were close enough to cause damage (probably touching) or interacted with in some other way, like if the monster tried to put it out. Even then, it would still have the fire-shaken -2 fear penalty to its save.

[Segev]

My favourite use is moving a trap - enemies will leap over the innocuous 5ft pit, only to land right into the actual 5ft pit on the other side of the illusion.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because figments can't create illusions of absence. The best they can do is create "drawings" on the surface to try to make it look like it's not there, and that only tends to work from a specific angle. (Google up some of the images of things people draw on streets to see how cool this can look...and then see if you can find some of those same images shot from a different perspective to see why that wouldn't work well overall.)

If you COULD make the illusion of absence, Silent Image would work as Invisibility on anybody you wanted it to; you could make the illusion that they weren't there.

[Flickerdart]

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because figments can't create illusions of absence...If you COULD make the illusion of absence, Silent Image would work as Invisibility on anybody you wanted it to; you could make the illusion that they weren't there.
It's not an illusion of absence - a hole is a thing, not just the absence of stone in a floor. A person, on the other hand, is not a "hole" in the air.

Alternatively, it's not super-hard to come up with an illusion of a covered-up hole - visibly eroded planks, convenient pile of branches in the middle of the path, etc.

[Segev]

It's not an illusion of absence - a hole is a thing, not just the absence of stone in a floor. A person, on the other hand, is not a "hole" in the air.Except a hole is a lack of a thing - it's a lack of floor. Let's say you have a rug lying over a corpse, and you make an illusion of a hole in the floor where the rug is. If a hole is a thing, you could do this, and thus make the ill-concealed corpse effectively invisible.


Alternatively, it's not super-hard to come up with an illusion of a covered-up hole - visibly eroded planks, convenient pile of branches in the middle of the path, etc.

This, however, works perfectly well.

[Flickerdart]

Except a hole is a lack of a thing - it's a lack of floor. Let's say you have a rug lying over a corpse, and you make an illusion of a hole in the floor where the rug is. If a hole is a thing, you could do this, and thus make the ill-concealed corpse effectively invisible.
No, then you'd just see a rug over a corpse - the hole is under the rug, and would be invisible. Were there no rug, you'd have a corpse floating above a hole.

[Lightlawbliss]

I think the illusion of the hole that was conceived before was a 2D image, not a 3D one. Nothing stops you from making an illusion of a black square, so a square that looks like a hole shouldn't be that much harder. When you know there is a hole in the ground, do you really pay that much attention to what a hole looks like when you have casually passed by it multiple times. By the time you know "sh**, that isn't the right hole", you are being introduced to gravity.

[Louro]

This might come handy:

All about illusions
Part 1: Basics
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
Part 2: Area and effect
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a
Part 3: saves
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a
Part 4: Examples and notes
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a

For game purposes, we can define "studying" an illusion as taking an action (which DMs can choose to make a move action since this is an extrapolation of the rules and not an actual rule) to observe an illusion effect and note its details. Some DMs I know require a Spot or Search check to disbelieve an illusion. That's going too far. Merely pausing and using an action to make the check is enough to allow a saving throw.

Also for game purposes, we can define "interacting" with an illusion as doing something that could affect the illusion or allowing the illusion to have an affect on you. You have a valid claim to an interaction with an illusion when you attack it, touch it, talk to it, poke it with a stick, target it with a spell, or do something else that one might do with a real creature or object.

The key to disbelieving an illusion is investing some time and effort in the illusion.

IMO setting the fire so close and surrounding was an error. It would work better allowing the troll a scape route, he would ran for his life... taking a long way around it to join the fight if so. Setting yourself on fire would have been more... "bardish".
- OMFG! That guy is just burning! I'm not even getting near him. Fuuuu... Can't we have normal people to ransack? Life is getting difficult... Maybe we better turning into farmers or something.

[SangoProduction]

This may have already been said but...
Yeah. I'd say that stuff inherent to the illusion that makes someone reconsider whether it is fire or not would count as interacting with it, without needing to take an action. I would not let them get bonuses, or actively disbelieve it. Maybe give them a bonus for each consecutive turn, but really, what troll is going to test fire, since it's one of it's only weaknesses, and it has an easier way to go around.
I would really even allow them to investigate it, unless someone's attacking through the wall of fire, and the best/only way is to jump through.

[Segev]

No, then you'd just see a rug over a corpse - the hole is under the rug, and would be invisible. Were there no rug, you'd have a corpse floating above a hole.

If you can make an illusion of a hole in the floor, you can make an illusion of a hole in the rug over the floor.

[bjoern]

If trolls are smart enough to know that flames that ain't hot ain't real, then they're also smart enough too assume that flames that ain't hot are some trick made by a wizard who has somehow masked the heat of the flames in an attempt to trick them into thinking they're fake so they will walk through them and get burned up.

Or trolls are just stupid and don't realize that Illusion spells even exist.

[Segev]

If trolls are smart enough to know that flames that ain't hot ain't real, then they're also smart enough too assume that flames that ain't hot are some trick made by a wizard who has somehow masked the heat of the flames in an attempt to trick them into thinking they're fake so they will walk through them and get burned up.

Or trolls are just stupid and don't realize that Illusion spells even exist.

This doesn't follow. "I know he knows that I know" is definitely a step up from "hey, dis ain't how it works!"

[Lightlawbliss]

If trolls are smart enough to know that flames that ain't hot ain't real, then they're also smart enough too assume that flames that ain't hot are some trick made by a wizard who has somehow masked the heat of the flames in an attempt to trick them into thinking they're fake so they will walk through them and get burned up.

Or trolls are just stupid and don't realize that Illusion spells even exist.

The difference between a bluff and a double bluff is huge, and I don't think anybody could reasonably expect a below average intelegence being to even THINK in terms of a double bluff, let alone separate a bluff and a double bluff. By the time you are looking at triple bluffs, your in supper-human intelligence to even know to look for it let alone think about it.

[Flickerdart]

If you can make an illusion of a hole in the floor, you can make an illusion of a hole in the rug over the floor.
What? I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. Yes, you can use Silent Image to create a rug with a hole in it. So what?

[Segev]

What? I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. Yes, you can use Silent Image to create a rug with a hole in it. So what?

Okay.

You posit that you can create a Silent Image of a hole in the ground.

You posit that you can create a Silent Image of a hole in a rug.

Can you create a Silent Image of a hole that goes straight through the chest of a corpse?

All three of ground, rug, and corpse are physically real objects; they are not illusions. The only illusion is the hole.

Let's put this rug on the ground. Can we make a Silent Image of a hole through the rug that is directly over a similarly-sized hole in the ground beneath it?

Let's put the corpse under the rug. Can we make a Silent Image of a hole in the rug that is right over a similarly-sized hole in the chest of the corpse that is right over a similarly-sized hole in the ground? (Imagine, perhaps, a shaft generated by a mighty orbital laser searing a hole straight through the rug, corpse, and ground.)


If we can do all of that, we have a Silent Image of a continuous hole through three objects. The Volume of Effect of Silent Image is bigger than this, however. So, let's make that hole bigger, such taht it actually cuts the corpse in twain. If we can make a Silent Image of a hole that pierces the rug, corpse, and ground, we can do the same if it's a bigger hole.

Now, let's make the hole bigger still. Let's make it bigger than the longest dimension of the corpse. Now, the hole is through the rug and the ground, and the corpse is just gone, isn't it?

Let's make the hole still bigger: it's now bigger than the entire rug. Now we just have a hole in the ground.

We've effectively made the rug and the corpse beneath it invisible!

[Grek]

I feel like the trolls thing has been answered well enough. Yes, they should get a save due to the lack of heat. No, they shouldn't get a bonus. Yes, if they fail they save, they should be shaken. So instead, I'm going to talk about something else:

Keep in mind that Silent Image has verbal and somatic components. It looks like a spell because it is a spell. Further, it's a DC 16 spellcraft check (trained only!) to identify the verbal and somatic components to Silent Image. If you don't have Spellcraft as a trained skill, by RAW you have no idea what spell is being cast and your character should react appropriately. All you know is that the caster cast "a spell" and something happened.

Silent Image of a fire? Caster just conjured some weirdly quiet eldritch
flames.

Silent Image of a cloud? Caster just conjured some fog.
Silent Image of a stone wall? Caster conjured a wall.

Silent Image of a ghost silently rising out of the floor? It's a real ghost!

Silent Image of a cage made from bars of light? Woah, that's some high level force cage stuff.
Silent Image of a battleaxe made of crawling darkness? It's an eeeeevil Spiritual Weapon!
Silent Image of some furniture? Well, when was the last time you heard the furniture make noise?

If you don't see them casting it in the first place, you don't even get the spellcraft check.

Silent Image of an orc dressed all in black pointing a bow at you? Must be an assassin, as quiet as he is!

[Zweisteine]

I'll pop in with my 2 cp.

An image of fire might make the trolls flinch, and they certainly wouldn't walk through it, but they wouldn't necessarily freak out. If they were sandwiched between the illusory flame and a warrior, I might say they count as flanked, but they certainly wouldn't suffer any more than that.

Of course, if any of them walk through it, they'll all realize it's not real. (Actually, I'd have them roll DC -1 intelligence checks. If they fail, they think they're suddenly immune to fire.)

[Milodiah]

Just gonna add something I realized reading this, even though it's more relevant to the discussion than the OP:

Silent Image + Zone of Silence = a justifiably silent thing. Can't hear the wolf growl, howl, charge, etc? A silent wolf may or may not grant a chance to roll a save, since that's weird...they may be stealthy, but when you watch one crash through underbrush right towards you in total silence you may realize something's up. But if you stumble into a Zone of Silence, either A) you think you just went deaf, and obviously you wouldn't hear the wolf, or B) you realize it's a Zone of Silence, and obviously you wouldn't hear the wolf.

Man, if only there was Sphere of Nonodorescence and Globe of Antithermality, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

[danzibr]

Of all the responses, I agree most with Trevortni.

For a moss troll to be shaken at the sight of (real) fire, they are *very* afraid of it. To invoke a lackluster book series, refer to Wizard's First Rule. They'll assume it's real because they fear it to be real. The part of their (unintelligent) minds which tells them something's off isn't going to overcome that primal fear, at least not initially.

At least that's how I'd rule it if I were DM.

[Grand Poobah]

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

Emphasis mine. You can make the opening to a pit appear to be covered/solid but you can't make the solid ground appear to be a pit.

[atemu1234]

This doesn't follow. "I know he knows that I know" is definitely a step up from "hey, dis ain't how it works!"

Yes. My dog knows the ball isn't where I said I threw it. Doesn't mean he knows it's in my hand.