About some spells that trouble my Campaign [Archive]

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2015-06-08, 07:03 PM

1. A (Wand of) Wings of Cover easily avoids this, wands take the same action to activate as the casting time of the contained spell per Rules Compendium, and you can put a wand chamber in a weapon/shield. Persistent Holy Star multiple times if high enough level, always have one in Spell Turning mode. Proof Against Transmutation armor enchantment (Magic of Faerun, +6 cost). Tons of ways to outright avoid something like this.

2. See Invisibility, Blindsight/Blindsense/Tremorsense, Scent, good ol' Spot and Listen checks, a bag of flour thrown around even. "If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving." If they're making any movement whatsoever, they get a Hide check at +20 vs opponents' Spot checks to pinpoint their location.

3. "An earth elemental can glide through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water." There are plenty of substances that this wouldn't permit passage through: tree roots, volcanic glass, baked bricks (which typically contain straw or other fibrous materials), trap components such as blades that could actually be hazardous to 'swim' into, etc. Also keep in mind that they cannot see through what they're moving through, and incorporeal creatures can still chase and even attack them while they're moving through the walls.

4. You don't need Obtain Familiar in that build, Arcane Heirophant automatically adds your arcane spellcaster levels to its own levels to determine your effective level for your familiar. Regardless, that's thwarted by (Greater) Dispel Magic, Arcane Turmoil, Disjunction, Wall of (Greater) Dispel Magic, etc. as well as narrow corridors and low ceilings. Crowd controls in general such as Wall of Force, Solid/Freezing Fog, etc. can be significantly useful against such a build. Ray of Stupidity (with metamagic like Split Ray, Lesser Rod of Maximize, etc. in this case) is generally the go-to disable for a beefed up animal companion. Damage-on-hit effects like Death Armor and Fire Shield (twice) are good against characters that make multiple attacks, especially if you add carrier effects like Fell Frighten and Fell Drain.

In any case, you should always use the PCs' own tactics against them. If they spam Flesh to Stone on every dangerous foe, throw an enemy who has an icicle (shortsword) that delivers a Flesh to Ice effect from Frostburn on any living creature it touches (including anyone who tries to wield it). Throw invisible foes at them, especially invisible casters who heal and buff and summon creatures while visible foes stand in front. Throw incorporeal opponents at them that Spring Attack from the walls/floor a few times and then wait around for them to start moving again (this adventure (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408757-Could-use-some-advice-on-how-to-challenge-a-high-powered-stealth-group#15)). Throw in a buffed up Gish or Cleric opponent (like this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358732-I-need-a-lot-of-easily-playable-builds#4)) to teach them humility. Give them uncomfortable environments with situations that will catch them off guard (like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?277465-Monster-Optimizing-Hydra#3)). Just be creative!

Ettina

2015-06-08, 07:54 PM

Give the guy with a poor save vs Flesh to Stone an ally who can cast Stone to Flesh.

Venger

2015-06-08, 08:29 PM

I seem to have a bit of a problem with some spells. I'd like to see how you deal with them, in case you have the same problem:
1) Flesh to stone
It has disabled quickly some key npc's/ monsters with some bad saving throws. Also, very few are immune to the effect. Nasty SoD.
2) Greater invisibility. Free spellcasting/stabing time.
3) Earth Glide. (Special ability from Earth Dreamer PrC.) Can be a problem many times.
4) An OP wu jen/druid/ hierophant Combo. obtain familiar + Familiar spellbond + companion familiar + share spells + giant size + bite of the werebear + shapesift afterwards. Guess what...

1) there are already several ways to counter this, namely stone to flesh and break enchantment. stone salve also does the job, as does PAO depending on your level
2) invisibility is a joke. as piggy knowles outlines, there are zillions of ways around it without using magic at all, since it's not like the party caster's gonna have dark stalker:

OK, just because I was interested, I started going through the Monster Manual, and here's what I've got thus far. This is just for CRs 1-5, although maybe I'll do the whole MM eventually.

I've broken this down by ability (scent, tremorsense, blindsense and blindsight). I also included the number of monsters that don't get any of the above traits, so that you can have an idea of what percentage they make up.

In the cases of monsters that have multiple traits, such as sharks (with both blindsense and scent), I've only marked them off as having whichever ability extends further (so, the sharks, having a 180' scent but only a 30' blindsense, get marked under scent). This way, the numbers aren't skewed by one monster getting a bunch of abilities.

CR 1:
SCENT: 12 monsters
TREMORSENSE: 3 monsters
BLINDSENSE: 1 monster
BLINDSIGHT: 2 monsters

Monsters without any of the above: 25

CR 2:
SCENT: 19 monsters
TREMORSENSE: 2 monsters
BLINDSENSE: 4 monsters
BLINDSIGHT: 0 monsters

Monsters without any of the above: 17

CR 3:
SCENT: 13 monsters
TREMORSENSE: 3 monsters
BLINDSENSE: 7 monsters
BLINDSIGHT: 2 monsters

Monsters without any of the above: 42

CR 4:
SCENT: 15 monsters
TREMORSENSE: 1 monster
BLINDSENSE: 7 monsters
BLINDSIGHT: 1 monster

Monsters without any of the above: 16

CR 5:
SCENT: 12 monsters
TREMORSENSE: 1 monster
BLINDSENSE: 7 monsters
BLINDSIGHT: 2 monsters

Monsters without any of the above: 22

3) in addition to the strategies mentioned, check out mindsight if you want to beat down your players. it won't see them when they're in the wall, but once they're out, they won't be able to attack anyone flatfooted unles they have spring attack or something

4) highly vulnerable to dispel, especially since CL is lagging. also remember that they have to stay in formation, or else the familiar's buffs wear off, very hard when in giant size. make sure you're enforcing it, and this problem will largely evaporate

Brova

2015-06-08, 09:04 PM

1. Maybe I'm weird, but flesh to stone doesn't seem like a particularly problematic save or die to me. As others have pointed out, it's fairly easy to cure (and doesn't cost a level like dying does). Honestly, at high levels the only SoD that's more than a temporary inconvenience is dominate person, because it requires your allies to beat you and your new friends in a battle to cure. And that's easy enough to beat if you prepare for it.
2. People who interact with greater invisibility get a save to disbelieve it, just like any other illusion. If it's really a big problem, just rule that carefully observing the appropriate area or being attacked offers a save. Or just use true seeing.
3. This is just a burrow speed. How is this breaking anything teleport, dimension door, or summoned Earth Elementals can't break already?
4. That's (at my estimation) a 20th level character or thereabouts. You are well within your rights to simply beat him at his own game and use shapechange stacking to be a better beatstick than he is.

Venger

2015-06-08, 09:19 PM

Brova

2015-06-08, 09:28 PM

2) no they don't. what are you talking about?

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

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

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

It's fairly clear. The only real question is how you interact with something not being visible. Presumably (or at least I would rule) you get a save if you "carefully study" the area where the invisible guy is supposed to be.

Geddy2112

2015-06-08, 09:31 PM

Antimagic field and dispel magic
/endthread.

In all seriousness, the posters above have some great advice. I'll throw in faerie fire and glitterdust as easy ways to counter invisibility.

Also, there are worse spells. Far worse. Baleful polymorph, haste, maze, feeblemind, and in pathfinder there is the superpowered(even with the nerf its still broken) paragon surge.

Venger

2015-06-08, 09:32 PM

It's fairly clear. The only real question is how you interact with something not being visible. Presumably (or at least I would rule) you get a save if you "carefully study" the area where the invisible guy is supposed to be.

you are wrong. the spell plainly states (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) that the only save involved is on the recipient. people who see you do not get a "will disbelief" this isn't 1st edition, and all illusion spells do not impose this. this is largely true of (figment) spells, which actually have "will disbelief" in the saving throw section. spells without that do not have a will disbelief effect.

Brova

2015-06-08, 09:42 PM

you are wrong. the spell plainly states (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) that the only save involved is on the recipient. people who see you do not get a "will disbelief" this isn't 1st edition, and all illusion spells do not impose this. this is largely true of (figment) spells, which actually have "will disbelief" in the saving throw section. spells without that do not have a will disbelief effect.

No, "will disbelief" is a general property of illusions. invisibility doesn't have to say it gets it, because it has it by default. Just like harm does have to say you can hold it's charge because it has it by default as a touch spell. invisibility would have to specifically say that it did not allow a save to disbelieve. I mean, FFS, the SRD considers first the general set of illusions ("A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false") and then the specific set of figments ("a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.").

Venger

2015-06-08, 09:52 PM

No, "will disbelief" is a general property of illusions. invisibility doesn't have to say it gets it, because it has it by default. Just like harm does have to say you can hold it's charge because it has it by default as a touch spell. invisibility would have to specifically say that it did not allow a save to disbelieve. I mean, FFS, the SRD considers first the general set of illusions ("A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false") and then the specific set of figments ("a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.").

No it is not. invisibility does say that by not having "will disbelief" in its saving line, or talking about what happens when enemies see you, like spells that actually have saving throws, such as hood of the cobra.

that's only true for illusions that have saving throws. invisibility does not have one versus viewers, only the people you cast it on.

Brova

2015-06-08, 09:57 PM

No it is not. invisibility does say that by not having "will disbelief" in its saving line, or talking about what happens when enemies see you, like spells that actually have saving throws, such as hood of the cobra.

that's only true for illusions that have saving throws. invisibility does not have one versus viewers, only the people you cast it on.

Where does the text say literally anything to support that? I mean, your best case is seriously to argue:

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

Doesn't actually imply that you do get a saving throw after carefully studying the illusion. Or perhaps that the use of the word "disbelief" in the section header implies that it covers only illusions which give a "will disbelief" save, despite the fact that the text makes no differentiation.

Story

2015-06-08, 10:01 PM

at high levels the only SoD that's more than a temporary inconvenience is dominate person, because it requires your allies to beat you and your new friends in a battle to cure. And that's easy enough to beat if you prepare for it.

And Dominate Person is blocked by an 8k item.

Venger

2015-06-08, 10:23 PM

Where does the text say literally anything to support that? I mean, your best case is seriously to argue:
Doesn't actually imply that you do get a saving throw after carefully studying the illusion. Or perhaps that the use of the word "disbelief" in the section header implies that it covers only illusions which give a "will disbelief" save, despite the fact that the text makes no differentiation.

in the part that you keep quoting:

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false,

yes. "will disbelief" means "will disbelief" it doesn't say it because it doesn't need to. the rules don't say "you don't need to make SR checks on sr: no spells" either, because that's general rules, same as reading the spell's saving throw description to know what kind of save it does or doesn't allow.

invisibility does not offer a saving throw to observers. it only offers a save to the person or object you cast it on. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

this section on disbelief does not give a save to spells that do not have a save

if you run into a simulacrum, you don't get to say "will disbelieve!" and destroy it because it does not allow a save. invisibility is the same. ask anyone.

The Viscount

2015-06-08, 11:09 PM

Where does the text say literally anything to support that? I mean, your best case is seriously to argue:

Doesn't actually imply that you do get a saving throw after carefully studying the illusion. Or perhaps that the use of the word "disbelief" in the section header implies that it covers only illusions which give a "will disbelief" save, despite the fact that the text makes no differentiation.

There are illusion spells where, beside save, it says the words "will disbelief" like silent image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm), phantasmal killer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm), or shadow evocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowEvocation.htm). There are illusion spells that do not have "will disbelief" such as blur (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blur.htm), mirror image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mirrorImage.htm), and yes, invisibility.

If the rule was meant to apply to all illusion spells why would they print a general rule, then repeat the rule for some spells, and then not repeat the rule for others? Doesn't it seem more likely that the rule only applies when they mention it?

From a more removed perspective, have you noticed that the ones that offer saves are those that most exert their effect on enemies, while those that don't offer saves usually exert their effect on the caster (or ally)? In both cases, invisibility lines up well.

SolarSystem

2015-06-09, 04:53 AM

#1 Contingent Stone to Flesh (If your party's tactics are well known to the target and he is aware that they're hunting him)
Not a wizard/sorcerer? Not a problem!
- UMD works wonders
- Or better yet if your key bad guy has the funds, a Ring of Spell Storing, Greater and an available wizard. With 11 days minimum duration on Contingency, this ring need not even be available as potential treasure should the PCs overcome the NPC anyway. >:D (although the 1,500 gp focus would be...)

For the rest I don't have anything to add that hasn't been stated already.

Yahzi

2015-06-09, 05:09 AM

you should always use the PCs' own tactics against them.
Can't figure out how to beat a PC's tactic? Use it against them! By next game session they will have worked out a perfect counter-move. :smallbiggrin:

Dras Kvaal

2015-06-09, 05:17 AM

Thank you all for advice. Group consists of:

1)Sun elf wu jen 3/druid 3 (shapeshift)/earth dreamer 5/arcane hierophant 4 with very low spell optimization (almost all druid spells are for heal, and teleport hasn't troubled me yet)
2)Fire gnome dragonfire adept (I've allowed on fire breath the +2 racial level dmg)
3)Human warblade 10/cloistered cleric 1/legacy champion 5 (legacy katana)
4)Gravetouched ghoul (ex-orog) barbarian 6 (berserker strength)/fighter 2/frenzied berserker 7. I've given some buffs to berserker strength with some feats and magic items that improve rage (+2 rage uses per day= +5 rounds per day=8 barbarian levels= +40 max hp for berserker strength, limited to 1/2 max hp. Also, ive given him the ability to use diehard as an undead to die at -10 and to heal naturally 1hp/HD)

We also use some general variant rules, more important of which:
-DR is allowed to stack from all class features with 1 from armor material (adamantine) and 1 magic item.
-Extra feat every 8 levels to tier 2, every 5 levels to tier 3, every 4 levels to tier 4 and every 3 levels to tier 5.
-Crafting time is reduced to 1/10, and you can take 10.
-SoD that kills deals 2d6*HD(caster) damage if caster is more than 2 CR lower than the enemy.
-Keen stacks with improved critical.
-20/20 results in a double critical damage.
-4 free proffesion ranks as backstory element.
-Free natural bond for rangers.
-Combat expertise gets +1 extra AC with 5 tumble ranks.
-Constitution modifier added
-Lower multiclass penalties, LA reduction available.

And a lot lesser. I'd love to hear your opinions. I know this party poses great differences and needs a great deal to keep fights balanced, but so far I didn't face any big problem.

Brova

2015-06-09, 06:45 AM

yes. "will disbelief" means "will disbelief" it doesn't say it because it doesn't need to. the rules don't say "you don't need to make SR checks on sr: no spells" either, because that's general rules, same as reading the spell's saving throw description to know what kind of save it does or doesn't allow.

Yes, the rules don't have to have each spell that doesn't allow SR override the general rule, because the general rule specifically notes:

Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.

You'll note no similar exception provided for in the interaction of illusions and will saving throws. Similarly, a spell with a range of touch doesn't need to state that you can hold the charge. An evocation doesn't need to state that you can't cast it if you've banned evocation. It's possible that the designers intended for only certain spells to be disbelieved on a will save, but the rules as they are written do not allow it.

if you run into a simulacrum, you don't get to say "will disbelieve!" and destroy it because it does not allow a save. invisibility is the same. ask anyone.

Actually, disbelieving it wouldn't destroy it, it would just reveal it to be false. Also, appeal to popularity.

If the rule was meant to apply to all illusion spells why would they print a general rule, then repeat the rule for some spells, and then not repeat the rule for others? Doesn't it seem more likely that the rule only applies when they mention it?

That's arguing RAI, not RAW. Frankly it is in accordance with the rules as printed (nothing about the rules for "Saving Throws and Illusions" indicates some spells don't get saves to disbelieve) and is probably better for the game (no more stupid legacy kludge). It's also helpful for case being presented here. There's really very little reason to rule to the contrary.

Segev

2015-06-09, 08:01 AM

The rules section on illusions and disbelief you keep quoting is rather explicitly clarifying how you adjudicate saving throws for disbelief, not broadly stating that all illusions get a saving throw to disbelieve. You're falling into the trap of assuming that the RAW are not interpretable. That they can only be read one way, and that way is your way. This is a common fallacy amongst those who get too far into the weeds of RAW discussion.

The RAW are written in English for an English-speaking audience. They have context and can occasionally be read to mean a few different, equally valid things. Often, context clarifies which is intended. Other times, you have to look at it and ask, "Does this make sense?" If there are two or more equally valid ways to interpret the RAW, and one of those ways results in fewer strange, backwards, or just plain insane outcomes than the others, it is most reasonable to go with that one interpretation as the right one.

In this case, the RAW spell out how saving throws for disbelief work with illusions. Since "Will Disbelief" is a line that appears in many Illusion spell headers, it makes sense that a rule is needed to explain this. One could alternatively interpret that rule section as being blanket-applicable to all Illusion spells, giving them all effectively "will disbelief," even though many lack that line or have something else in that section. That second interpretation requires assuming that even in the core rules, a large number of illusion spells have wholly extraneous saving throw lines, and that invisibility can be seen through just because somebody saw you earlier when you were casting a spell.

The first interpretation, on the other hand, assumes that the spells as written are consistent with what they say.

While you can make argument that editing and writing in D&D 3e was spotty, and there are numerous instances of rules dysfunctions, we again reach a point where you can either interpret the RAW in a way that creates a dysfunction, or you can use an (at least) equally-valid interpretation (not house rule) which creates consistency and sense in the RAW and how they play out.

Therefore, it is not sensible to claim that the interpretation which creates the dysfunction is the correct one. It requires no house ruling, merely examining context and understanding what is being said within that context, to come to the interpretation which works smoothly and without dysfunction. It requires further tortured reading to take that ruling and make it create dysfunction elsewhere. Therefore, we can conclude that the RAW are not broken here because there exists and obvious and straight-forward way to read them which create no dysfunctions and no strange situations.

Brova

2015-06-09, 08:15 AM

In this case, the RAW spell out how saving throws for disbelief work with illusions. Since "Will Disbelief" is a line that appears in many Illusion spell headers, it makes sense that a rule is needed to explain this. One could alternatively interpret that rule section as being blanket-applicable to all Illusion spells, giving them all effectively "will disbelief," even though many lack that line or have something else in that section. That second interpretation requires assuming that even in the core rules, a large number of illusion spells have wholly extraneous saving throw lines, and that invisibility can be seen through just because somebody saw you earlier when you were casting a spell.

No. We have instances of rules clarifying what parts of spell descriptions do. For example, the section on spell resistance includes the following passage:

Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell.

That is an explicit provision that some spells override the general rule of spell resistance. Not only is there no such provision in "Saving Throws and Illusions", nowhere in the description of invisibility does it say there is no saving throw for disbelief. You are seriously arguing that because the spell does not comment on the general rule for spells of its kind, that rule does not apply. By that same logic a Wizard is perfectly capable of casting spells of a prohibited school. After all, fireball doesn't say you can't cast it if you've barred evocation, therefore you can cast it regardless of whether you've barred evocation.

Therefore, it is not sensible to claim that the interpretation which creates the dysfunction is the correct one. It requires no house ruling, merely examining context and understanding what is being said within that context, to come to the interpretation which works smoothly and without dysfunction. It requires further tortured reading to take that ruling and make it create dysfunction elsewhere. Therefore, we can conclude that the RAW are not broken here because there exists and obvious and straight-forward way to read them which create no dysfunctions and no strange situations.

First, it's not actually a dysfunction if you get a save against invisibility. It's just a defense against invisibility. Is having tremorsense a dysfunction?

Second, you're argument is basically just the Oberoni fallacy, if a mild version of such. The fact that something can be interpreted in a way which is not broken does not make that thing not broken.

Segev

2015-06-09, 08:35 AM

No. We have instances of rules clarifying what parts of spell descriptions do. For example, the section on spell resistance includes the following passage:

That is an explicit provision that some spells override the general rule of spell resistance. Not only is there no such provision in "Saving Throws and Illusions", nowhere in the description of invisibility does it say there is no saving throw for disbelief. You are seriously arguing that because the spell does not comment on the general rule for spells of its kind, that rule does not apply. By that same logic a Wizard is perfectly capable of casting spells of a prohibited school. After all, fireball doesn't say you can't cast it if you've barred evocation, therefore you can cast it regardless of whether you've barred evocation.Except that he section you're referencing for your evidence is headed as, "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)."

Right there, it spells out that it applies to Illusions with the "(Disbelief)" tag used in their saving throws line.

Spells that do not have the word "(disbelief)" in their saving throws line would not have this rule apply to them. You CAN interpret it to be broader, but doing so is reading the rules as more poorly written than they are.

First, it's not actually a dysfunction if you get a save against invisibility. It's just a defense against invisibility. Is having tremorsense a dysfunction?Perhaps not, but there exist plenty such defenses - including tremorsense and blindsight - without this, so it's not like you're "fixing" an otherwise overpowered thing. Further, it need not be a dysfunction for it to require that you assume the rules elsewhere are in error or poorly written, when an alternate interpretation that is at least equally valid leaves the rules consistently written and clear.

Second, you're argument is basically just the Oberoni fallacy, if a mild version of such. The fact that something can be interpreted in a way which is not broken does not make that thing not broken.No. The Oberoni Fallacy applies when somebody says, "I can house-rule it away" or "I can apply rule zero." This is a case of saying that you can choose the context you wish to apply to get two different meanings from the rule; one way requires you to assume that the rules elsewhere are poorly and confusingly written, while the other leaves them clear and accurate.

This isn't about making something up or changing something. This is about choosing whether to assume that the reading is more correct if it requires assuming the writers made a mistake or did not.

Anything that assumes the writers made a mistake should be examined carefully and with prejudice, because if one can read it in a way that does not require them to have done so, that latter is more likely the right way to read it.

In essence, just because there exist clear instances where mistakes were made, that is not evidence that every chance to determine a mistake was made is accurate. When you can find a mistake if you read it one way, or find no mistake if you read it another, the latter is more likely to be correct. No matter how many genuine mistakes exist elsewhere. To determine otherwise is to allow the RAW to say anything you want, because anything that disagrees with your interpretation, no matter how silly, is "a mistake."

bekeleven

2015-06-09, 08:36 AM

That's not the Oberoni fallacy at all.

It's telling that your airtight clear-as-day reading is that text discussing illusion saving throws "implies" that all illusions have saving throws. Maybe instead of inventing dozens of new saves on spells, that line was talking about, say, when you get to roll the save against an illusion offering one?

So, you're perfectly free to disbelieve my mirror image once you save against it. Go on, I'll wait.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2015-06-09, 08:36 AM

Segev

2015-06-09, 09:11 AM

You know it doesn't matter how you rule the illusion save issue, right? A successful save might let you disbelieve Invisibility, but it says NOTHING about allowing you to completely ignore the visual effect. If you save against the illusion of a giant pit of lava than, as written, you still SEE a giant pit of lava...you just know it's not real and can act accordingly.

So you'd know the invisibility isn't real. Congratulations: you still can't see the thing that's invisible without another effect.

This is actually true; even accepting (for the sake of argument) the ruling that you get an unwritten "will (disbelief)" save vs. invisibility, invisibility is not a figment nor a phantasm. Therefore, it doesn't "remain as a translucent outline," and while you know the illusion that nobody is there is false, there is no indication that its visual properties - that is, that you cannot see them - are changed since it is not a figment nor a phantasm.

I still disagree with the whole position, and note that if you accept that position, Mirror Image becomes "translucent" with that invented save, but that somehow it still provides a chance that the attacker (who apparently can see through it now) still hits an image by mistake. i.e., interpreting it this way creates nonsensical situations, while interpreting it the other way does not.

Again, not the Oberoni Fallacy, because it is not rule zeroing anything. It's reading it with at least as accurate a denotation in such a way that silly, nonsensical effects don't occur.

Brova

2015-06-09, 09:42 AM

Except that he section you're referencing for your evidence is headed as, "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)."

Right there, it spells out that it applies to Illusions with the "(Disbelief)" tag used in their saving throws line.

No, it doesn't. Notice how while the header uses that term, none of the text does. Again, look at the section on spell resistance. There's an explicit mention of spells that don't allow spell resistance, both in the section on spell resistance and the sections on overcoming it. No such text exists for illusions. You may feel that there is an implication that the section only applies to "will disbelief" spells, or that the RAI is for it to only apply to such spells, but it very clearly does not.

No. The Oberoni Fallacy applies when somebody says, "I can house-rule it away" or "I can apply rule zero." This is a case of saying that you can choose the context you wish to apply to get two different meanings from the rule; one way requires you to assume that the rules elsewhere are poorly and confusingly written, while the other leaves them clear and accurate.

It's not literally Oberoni, but it's the same "there's a version that isn't broken, therefore there's no problem" argument.

You know it doesn't matter how you rule the illusion save issue, right? A successful save might let you disbelieve Invisibility, but it says NOTHING about allowing you to completely ignore the visual effect. If you save against the illusion of a giant pit of lava than, as written, you still SEE a giant pit of lava...you just know it's not real and can act accordingly.

I mean, you now know that there's not nobody wherever the invisible person is. That's not exactly seeing them, but it's very close.

Segev

2015-06-09, 09:54 AM

No, it doesn't. Notice how while the header uses that term, none of the text does. Again, look at the section on spell resistance. There's an explicit mention of spells that don't allow spell resistance, both in the section on spell resistance and the sections on overcoming it. No such text exists for illusions. You may feel that there is an implication that the section only applies to "will disbelief" spells, or that the RAI is for it to only apply to such spells, but it very clearly does not.Nope, sorry, the header is part of the rules, and provides context for the entire section under the header. That's the point of a header.

I mean, seriously, you're trying to argue:

a) The header is not meaningful in the face of the paragraph it heads, because the word "(disbelief)" doesn't appear in it.
b) Despite the specific spells not including anything about will saves for disbelief, the paragraphs headed by a header who doesn't control the paragraphs control the spells.

Not only is that inconsistent, it's backwardsly so. Specific overrides general, not the other way around, and you're trying to ignore explicit context directly heading the rules you're referencing while insisting that the specific spells are overridden by the paragraph that is not directly connected to them!

It's not literally Oberoni, but it's the same "there's a version that isn't broken, therefore there's no problem" argument.That's the thing: there IS a version that isn't broken, and it does not require changing nor ignoring the RAW. Therefore there is no problem other than people misinterpreting the RAW.

If you come to a sign that says, "Turn left," you could interpret it as meaning to literally turn your body to the left, or as meaning to adopt a more left-leaning political philosophy. In the context of a list of directions to a location, one is a perfectly sensible instruction, while the other is a pointless and possibly offensive attempt to dictate your thoughts and feelings on a matter unrelated to getting anywhere.

On the other hand, if this were a magical list of directions to a mystical locale wherein your mindset is critical to getting there, if you turned physically left and found your way barred, it would not mean the instructions were broken; it would mean you interpreted them wrong.

Context is important. And when two valid denotations can be read from the same instructions/rules, the one that makes sense in context and doesn't require that a bunch of other instructions must have been written incorrectly is probably the correct one.

This is not fallacious. In fact, the OTHER way of looking at it, that the way which creates the most conflict and confusion and assumes the most inconsistency and error is right, is at BEST flawed. I'd hazard to dub it the Rules Lawyer Fallacy: Looking for errors by interpreting the rules in a way that creates nonsense when there are perfectly valid ways to interpret it that make it work just fine, without having to change a single denotation.

I mean, you now know that there's not nobody wherever the invisible person is. That's not exactly seeing them, but it's very close.You don't need to roll a save to do that. Being invisible is only a -40 to the perception check to notice you. It's not a penalty at all to the listen check (in 3.5). And if somebody is stabbing you while under greater invisibility, you know you're being stabbed and don't need a will save to deduce that somebody invisible is doing it.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2015-06-09, 10:03 AM

I mean, you now know that there's not nobody wherever the invisible person is. That's not exactly seeing them, but it's very close.

As written, you'd simply disbelieve the invisibility: you'd know there's somebody or something at the particular position that person is now. There's no RAW to support anything but the knowledge that something invisible is around you: as such, there's no RAW to support you being able to predict or pinpoint their position any better than anyone else.

Brova

2015-06-09, 10:10 AM

Nope, sorry, the header is part of the rules, and provides context for the entire section under the header. That's the point of a header.

Sure, but you'll note that even under that argument, the section talks about disbelief - not "save: will disbelief" spells. It's the rules for illusions and saving throws, not the rules for disbelief saving throws. If it was the rules for disbelief saving throws, it would be called "disbelief saving throws."

a) The header is not meaningful in the face of the paragraph it heads, because the word "(disbelief)" doesn't appear in it.

Not quite. The header is totally meaningful, it just doesn't mean what you want it to.

b) Despite the specific spells not including anything about will saves for disbelief, the paragraphs headed by a header who doesn't control the paragraphs control the spells.

What? If a spell doesn't override the general rule, the general rule applies. For example, touch spells can hold a charge. harm doesn't need to tell you that you can, it is a property of touch spells. If, for example, shocking grasp was supposed to dissipate, it would have to say it did. And then you wouldn't be able to hold shocking grasp, because specific overrides general. There is no specific rule about saving to disbelieve invisibility, so it defaults to the general rule for illusions. Just as fireball's lack of a specific range descriptor forces it to default to the general rule for spells with long range.

That's the thing: there IS a version that isn't broken, and it does not require changing nor ignoring the RAW. Therefore there is no problem other than people misinterpreting the RAW.

No, there's not. Not until you've proven that you can in fact interpret the text to apply only to "save: will disbelief" spells.

You don't need to roll a save to do that. Being invisible is only a -40 to the perception check to notice you. It's not a penalty at all to the listen check (in 3.5). And if somebody is stabbing you while under greater invisibility, you know you're being stabbed and don't need a will save to deduce that somebody invisible is doing it.

Your point exactly? You don't need to roll an attack to defeat a orc, power word pain does that. That doesn't mean you can't roll an attack to defeat an orc.

As written, you'd simply disbelieve the invisibility: you'd know there's somebody or something at the particular position that person is now. There's no RAW to support anything but the knowledge that something invisible is around you: as such, there's no RAW to support you being able to predict or pinpoint their position any better than anyone else.

Except what invisibility does is mask the presence of a person. If you know that masking to be false, that's the same as knowing where the person is.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2015-06-09, 10:17 AM

Except what invisibility does is mask the presence of a person. If you know that masking to be false, that's the same as knowing where the person is.

Beg pardon? This isn't true at all: there's literally 0 RAW support for it. As per the rules you've been quoting, if we assume you CAN save to disbelieve invisibility, that's all that happens. You disbelieve it. There are no rulings for what disbelieving an illusion means, save for the clauses about Will (disbelief) on Figments and Phantasms (and I challenge you to find me rules supporting any alternative rulings).

As such, yes: you can disbelieve invisibility. But, Rules as Written, that has no effect on the spells functionality. You know the illusion isn't real: you know the person is still really there. But there's nothing to support you being able to see them, know where they are, or track them any better than anyone else. In fact, given that you have to interact with them to even GET a save in the first place, you're not even ahead of anyone who has just been normally attacked and can realized there's an invisible foe out there somewhere.

Brova

2015-06-09, 10:34 AM

Beg pardon? This isn't true at all: there's literally 0 RAW support for it. As per the rules you've been quoting, if we assume you CAN save to disbelieve invisibility, that's all that happens. You disbelieve it. There are no rulings for what disbelieving an illusion means, save for the clauses about Will (disbelief) on Figments and Phantasms (and I challenge you to find me rules supporting any alternative rulings).

A successful saving throw doesn't "disbelieve" an illusion, it "reveals it to be false". Obviously, it's up for debate what it means for invisibility to be revealed as false, but given that the effect of invisibility is to cause there to not appear to be a person where a person is, knowing it to be false would reveal a person to be there. Best case is that whoever made the save knows what square you're in, worst case they can "see" you but not visual details such as color.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2015-06-09, 10:41 AM

A successful saving throw doesn't "disbelieve" an illusion, it "reveals it to be false". Obviously, it's up for debate what it means for invisibility to be revealed as false, but given that the effect of invisibility is to cause there to not appear to be a person where a person is, knowing it to be false would reveal a person to be there. Best case is that whoever made the save knows what square you're in, worst case they can "see" you but not visual details such as color.

Again, there is no RAW support for any of this, nor any RAW definition of "reveals it to be false". Since we've been using RAW to defend even getting a save against invisibility I see no problem in using RAW to defend its functionality.

That said, here's another very strong argument:

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

Note that this does not say "are always entitled to a saving throw if they do interact with it." A strictly RAW reading is that this doesn't GIVE you saving throws if they're not listed but instead DENIES you saving throws that ARE listed until you have interacted with or studied the illusion.

Also, in the section defining saving throws, we have these lines:

Disbelief
A successful save lets the subject ignore the effect.

-----

(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

RAW, only spells with Disbelief can be ignored on a successful save. Also, only the targeted creature gets a saving throw against an effect with Harmless. Per RAW, invisibility does not have Disbelief, but does have (harmless), so you cannot save against it unless you are the subject.