Illusion school rules interpretation - am I right?

[Dren Nas]

I have a conundrum.

I've always played illusions spells as "as soon as you perceive the spell you get a save to disbelieve." Meaning if they notice something through a spot, listen or search check they should get a save to disbelieve in addition to the opportunity to save vs a major illusion as soon as it walks up to them.

Am I playing it wrong? I've always thought to interact would be it having an effect on one of your senses. By effect I mean, showing up on them.

If I'm wrong, could you help clarify?

[Afgncaap5]

I believe that interacting with involves tactile sensation in some way. I could be mistaken, but I think if I make an illusion of a giant praying mantis at the end of a hall, they only get the save if they attack it (or if my illusion attacks them) or if they otherwise physically move to a place where they'd be in physical contact.

I might alter this a bit in some other ways. If I make the illusion of a fire elemental I might allow a save if a player was close enough to feel the heat of such a creature pouring off of it, or if I make the illusion of a tray of limburger cheese a player might get a save if they get close enough to it to smell it. Those are sensory things that have an "effect" on the player.

This is why illusions to hide doors (or gaping holes in the floors) are extra tricky.

[Troacctid]

To interact with something generally requires some kind of action. Making a reactive Spot or Listen check is not an action, so it isn't an interaction either. An active Spot or Listen check does use an action, so it should suffice.

[Dren Nas]

I believe that interacting with involves tactile sensation in some way. I could be mistaken, but I think if I make an illusion of a giant praying mantis at the end of a hall, they only get the save if they attack it (or if my illusion attacks them) or if they otherwise physically move to a place where they'd be in physical contact.

I might alter this a bit in some other ways. If I make the illusion of a fire elemental I might allow a save if a player was close enough to feel the heat of such a creature pouring off of it, or if I make the illusion of a tray of limburger cheese a player might get a save if they get close enough to it to smell it. Those are sensory things that have an "effect" on the player.

This is why illusions to hide doors (or gaping holes in the floors) are extra tricky.

I can see where you're coming from, but I thought that seeing the illusions was it interacting with you, and that interaction allowed the save.

Using phantasmal killer as an example. You get a save to disbelieve as soon as you see it. You don't have to wait for it to touch you to save. You get to save vs death then.

Why are other illusions different? Why wouldn't you get a chance to disbelieve any illusions like you would th phantasmal killer?

[Zanos]

I believe that interacting with involves tactile sensation in some way. I could be mistaken, but I think if I make an illusion of a giant praying mantis at the end of a hall, they only get the save if they attack it (or if my illusion attacks them) or if they otherwise physically move to a place where they'd be in physical contact.

I might alter this a bit in some other ways. If I make the illusion of a fire elemental I might allow a save if a player was close enough to feel the heat of such a creature pouring off of it, or if I make the illusion of a tray of limburger cheese a player might get a save if they get close enough to it to smell it. Those are sensory things that have an "effect" on the player.

This is why illusions to hide doors (or gaping holes in the floors) are extra tricky.
Doesn't that interfere with the rule that a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real automatically disbelieves? Being attacked by a fake praying mantis doesn't give you a safe, you automatically make it when you pass your check.

Another wacky thing about that rule is that, technically, anyone who makes their spellcraft check on an illusion spell automatically disbelieves it, since they have proof it isn't real.

[Gildedragon]

Doesn't that interfere with the rule that a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real automatically disbelieves? Being attacked by a fake praying mantis doesn't give you a safe, you automatically make it when you pass your check. depends if it hits you or not. If it misses you get a save to disbelieve


Another wacky thing about that rule is that, technically, anyone who makes their spellcraft check on an illusion spell automatically disbelieves it, since they have proof it isn't real.
Yeap. That's sound. Makes feats that hide what you do very handy for illusionists

[Segev]

Generally, unless they take specific action to study it, or try to do something that they could do with it if it were real, I won't give them a save, because they haven't interacted with it. If they act like it's an illusion anyway (and there are no mechanics forcing them not to), then that means the player - and thus the character - was unconvinced by it even if he can't convince his subconscious it's not real. Generally, illusions (well, figments, at least) only work at all if they have that shot at just "passing" without anybody doubting them in the first place.

Phantasms get saves immediately largely because they tend to be directly interacting with the target, anyway. Phantasmal killer is actively trying to scare the target to death. That's an interaction immediately.

[Kelb_Panthera]

IMO, yeah, you're doing it wrong.

Just seeing/hearing an illusory object isn't enough to get a save. If you're not caarefully examining it or trying to actually touch it then it doesn't warrant consideration for belief or disbelief.

This is, ultimately, a DM call though. The official line is thus;


Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

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.

What, exaclty, constitutes careful study or interaction is up to the DM. I'd say that entering into combat with an illusory creature should cerainly count but YMMV.

[Dren Nas]

So, no save vs illusions unless you try to poke, prod, taste, smell it?

Why would seeing or hearing it not give you a chance to realize that it isn't real?

[Dren Nas]

This is why illusions to hide doors (or gaping holes in the floors) are extra tricky.

Wouldn't blocking doors and holes be considered an interaction?

Interaction is defined as "reciprocal action or influence."

It seems to me that blocking your sight could be considered an influence on you.

[Deophaun]

Otherwise, Why would seeing or hearing it not give you a chance to realize that it isn't real?
It does. But that takes a standard action as per the rules.

Illusions are fragile enough as is. They don't need to be rendered any more vulnerable.

Edit:

Wouldn't blocking doors and holes be considered an interaction?

Interaction is defined as "reciprocal action or influence."

It seems to me that blocking your sight could be considered an influence on you.
I bolded the part you missed. After all, if an illusion is blocking your sight, what, then, are you doing to the illusion to make it reciprocal? Answer: nothing. The very definition you cite explains why you don't get a save.

[Gallowglass]

Dres Nas>

remember back in Order of the Stick 892: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0892.html

Translating this comic to a possible game scenario: player C casts silent image to look like the wall he is casting it in front of only with a slight angle difference. The bad guys then enter the room, walking past the illusionary wall with no other interaction with it and no particular reason to pay attention to the walls of the chamber.

These bad guys are NOT making saving throws. Why not? Because there has been NO meaningful interaction with the illusion beyond walking by it and the wall is a convincing illusion.

Now if player C had made the wall bright pink or something to make the illusion less convincing, then they could have warranted a saving throw. Because seeing something weird will draw your attention to it and make you scrutinize it which is a meaningful interaction.

In an example someone gave above of an illusion of a giant praying mantis, would they get a save? That really depends on the circumstances around the encounter. Is a giant praying mantis a really weird thing to find in that hallway or is that pretty par for the course? If giant praying mantises are as common as house-cats, then probably they wouldn't get a save upon seeing it without some other interaction. If they are expecting monstrous guardians in these halls and they see one like that, I would base the saving throw off what their reaction to it is. Do they say "yikes! look at the size of that thing!" and turn around and shut the door and decide to go another way? Then no save. Do they charge and attack? Well when their swords start going through it that's an auto-disbelieve. Do they say "wait, how does this guy keep a creature like that down here? that makes no sense. I'm going to stay here but look closer at the mantis" Then, yeah, welcome to your save.

Now if none of that is convincing, let me appeal to you this way. You are the DM. Do you want your Players to stop casting all illusions, treat the school as an auto-drop school, and give up using illusions against the PCs as enemy tactics? Because that's the most probable outcome if you DM illusions the way you are. You are basically handicapping illusion and handicapping the PCs ability to use illusions tactically. Why would I ever use silent image in your game? The more bad guys, the more automatic the failure of the spell.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you and your players are on the same wavelength.

[Dren Nas]

It does. But that takes a standard action as per the rules.

Illusions are fragile enough as is. They don't need to be rendered any more vulnerable.

I'm not trying to weaken them. I've been playing through various groups as a dm and a played since '03. Most everyone's I've played with has treated them the same way.



I bolded the part you missed. After all, if an illusion is blocking your sight, what, then, are you doing to the illusion to make it reciprocal? Answer: nothing. The very definition you cite explains why you don't get a save.



Good point, but it says "or" not "and". You may not be acting on it, but it is still acting on you by blocking your sight.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Good point, but it says "or" not "and". You may not be acting on it, but it is still acting on you by blocking your sight.

Simply existing is not a meaningful interaction, IMO. Blocking LoS isn't an action being taken, it's a passive state of existence. If it was an -actual- wall there, you wouldn't even consider saying it was acting in any way, would you? Of course not, it's just there and simply existing is nearly the definition of inaction.

[Dren Nas]

Dres Nas>

remember back in Order of the Stick 892: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0892.html

Translating this comic to a possible game scenario: player C casts silent image to look like the wall he is casting it in front of only with a slight angle difference. The bad guys then enter the room, walking past the illusionary wall with no other interaction with it and no particular reason to pay attention to the walls of the chamber.

These bad guys are NOT making saving throws. Why not? Because there has been NO meaningful interaction with the illusion beyond walking by it and the wall is a convincing illusion.

Now if player C had made the wall bright pink or something to make the illusion less convincing, then they could have warranted a saving throw. Because seeing something weird will draw your attention to it and make you scrutinize it which is a meaningful interaction.

I've always thought how convincing the wall is was worked into the will save giving a bonus or negative depending on how familiar the surroundings were. That's how I've always played it.


In an example someone gave above of an illusion of a giant praying mantis, would they get a save? That really depends on the circumstances around the encounter. Is a giant praying mantis a really weird thing to find in that hallway or is that pretty par for the course? If giant praying mantises are as common as house-cats, then probably they wouldn't get a save upon seeing it without some other interaction. If they are expecting monstrous guardians in these halls and they see one like that, I would base the saving throw off what their reaction to it is. Do they say "yikes! look at the size of that thing!" and turn around and shut the door and decide to go another way? Then no save. Do they charge and attack? Well when their swords start going through it that's an auto-disbelieve. Do they say "wait, how does this guy keep a creature like that down here? that makes no sense. I'm going to stay here but look closer at the mantis" Then, yeah, welcome to your save.

I've always thought that was baked into the will saves. The barb and fighter move to attack the mantis while the wizard and cleric chuckle to themselves as the gullible ones are tricked again kinda thing.


Now if none of that is convincing, let me appeal to you this way. You are the DM. Do you want your Players to stop casting all illusions, treat the school as an auto-drop school, and give up using illusions against the PCs as enemy tactics? Because that's the most probable outcome if you DM illusions the way you are. You are basically handicapping illusion and handicapping the PCs ability to use illusions tactically. Why would I ever use silent image in your game? The more bad guys, the more automatic the failure of the spell.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you and your players are on the same wavelength.

I can see your point, but playing it that way doesn't give the players or enemies a chance to fail when they cast the spell. I can definitely see treating illusions differently from here on because of the feedback on this tread though.

Question: If you cast an illusions spell to make a wall appear to hide you in front of an enemy, would they get a save to disbelieve?

[Gildedragon]

Question: If you cast an illusions spell to make a wall appear to hide you in front of an enemy, would they get a save to disbelieve?
If they see the wall pop out of nowhere... sureedit: invisible bison makes a good point; it might just be a physical wall that is popped into existence so no save unless you touch/spend time examining; if it appeared to be smoke or other cover-y thing besides solid wall then probably not.

[InvisibleBison]

Question: If you cast an illusions spell to make a wall appear to hide you in front of an enemy, would they get a save to disbelieve?

Probably not. There are a lot of spells that make actual, physical walls appear, after all. If the enemy knows somehow that you aren't capable of casting a spell to create a wall, or recognizes that you're casting an illusion spell, he'd probably get a save. Otherwise, simply seeing the wall appear shouldn't give a save.

[Dren Nas]

Simply existing is not a meaningful interaction, IMO. Blocking LoS isn't an action being taken, it's a passive state of existence. If it was an -actual- wall there, you wouldn't even consider saying it was acting in any way, would you? Of course not, it's just there and simply existing is nearly the definition of inaction.

I see what you're saying.

How would you handle an illusionary wall blocking something? would a 20th level wizard really not have a chance to realize a wall created by minor image from a 4th level caster is just an illusion because he isn't studying it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Question: If you cast an illusions spell to make a wall appear to hide you in front of an enemy, would they get a save to disbelieve?

Depends on a couple of factors.

If you're being pursued and cover a corridor that -should- be there with a wall, they'll almost certainly realize something is wrong.

If you duck into an alcove in a wall that only has the one alcove and cover that, probably not.

If you make two consecutive turns at intersections and cover the second before the persuers round the first, it depends on how familiar the persuers are with the area.

If they actually see you conjure the wall, they may try to knock it down and would certainly get a save or even automatically disbelieve when it provides no resistance to their attacks.

Figments and the will save to disbelieve are -extremely- GM and situation dependent.


I see what you're saying.

How would you handle an illusionary wall blocking something? would a 20th level wizard really not have a chance to realize a wall created by minor image from a 4th level caster is just an illusion because he isn't studying it?

I would presume that a 20th level wizard made arcane sight permanent long ago and can make a spellcraft check to reckognize the wall as illusory by its aura. Success would mean proof that the wall isn't real and auto-pass the save to disbelieve.

[Jack_Simth]

I have a conundrum.

I've always played illusions spells as "as soon as you perceive the spell you get a save to disbelieve." Meaning if they notice something through a spot, listen or search check they should get a save to disbelieve in addition to the opportunity to save vs a major illusion as soon as it walks up to them.

Am I playing it wrong? I've always thought to interact would be it having an effect on one of your senses. By effect I mean, showing up on them.

If I'm wrong, could you help clarify?

Well, first, let's check out the Illusion school description in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion) for reference, specifically the saving throws section:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

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.

Key phrase is: "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."

It's somewhat vaguely worded; if you're the DM, your word runs. As you're just giving them the save, it's unlikely that your players will complain (unless they're illusionists).

How would I run it?
If you ask for a perception check (Spot, Listen, Search, et cetera), then it counts as studying carefully as you're deliberately trying to be observant, so you get the save.
If you're interacting with something that's got an illusion on it (non-exhaustive examples: discussing tactics with a man under the effects of Disguise Self, touching a building under the effects of Mirage Arcana, or fighting a creature summoned up via Shadow Conjouration), then you're interacting with it, so you get the save.
If you're walking normally down a hallway (not doing anything special - not searching, not running your hand along the wall as you go, not tapping a cane to listen for echoes, etcetera) then you don't get a save to realize that you just passed an Illusory Wall that covers up a branch off the main hallway.

What constitutes proof varies a bit too, of course, but in general if you watch something you know is solid pass through it, you've got your proof.

Edit: Oh yes, and I'd definitely grant a save if they see the wall spring up out of nowhere. Sure, it might be a Wall of Stone or some such, but that's not a definite conclusion, and they'd be watching things in that circumstance.

[Larsen]

I see what you're saying.

How would you handle an illusionary wall blocking something? would a 20th level wizard really not have a chance to realize a wall created by minor image from a 4th level caster is just an illusion because he isn't studying it?


If he has no reason to examine the wall or think i could be an illusion, no. (the 20th level wizard probably has permanent arcane sight or detect magic, so that will show him a magical wall)

[Zanos]

I see what you're saying.

How would you handle an illusionary wall blocking something? would a 20th level wizard really not have a chance to realize a wall created by minor image from a 4th level caster is just an illusion because he isn't studying it?
A 20th level wizard has a variety of spells that are capable of automatically defeating nearly all illusions. He would probably use those.

[Dren Nas]

If he has no reason to examine the wall or think i could be an illusion, no. (the 20th level wizard probably has permanent arcane sight or detect magic, so that will show him a magical wall)

Without detect magic or arcane sight

[Larsen]

Without detect magic or arcane sight


Then no (that was the answer before mentionning the spells)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Without detect magic or arcane sight

I'd be wondering how he made 20 without such a necessary effect but in that case it depends on where the wall suddenly appeared, same as for anyone else. High level doesn't give you any special resistance or advantage beyond the tools it makes available. If you don't avail yourself of those tools, you don't get any special treatment.

[Dren Nas]

I'd be wondering how he made 20 without such a necessary effect but in that case it depends on where the wall suddenly appeared, same as for anyone else. High level doesn't give you any special resistance or advantage beyond the tools it makes available. If you don't avail yourself of those tools, you don't get any special treatment.

It's hypothetical XD

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's hypothetical XD

I get that but you need more than just the illusory wall itself in your hypothetical scenario for us to meaningfully suggest which way to rule it. There's an enormous difference between a big pink wall standing freely in an open field and a wall matched to the cobblestones of the corridor covering one leg of an intersection. There's also the familiarity of the person seeing the wall with the area, the sensibility of a wall being in that place, and any magical or mundane effort to look for hidden passages and alcoves to consider. Just "a wall" isn't enough information.

[Kid Jake]

It's hypothetical XD

Isn't that kind of like saying "Are you saying a 20th level Fighter couldn't out-wrestle a 4th level Fighter? By the way, the 20th level Fighter doesn't have any arms..."?

[AnachroNinja]

Pick an area you frequent in real life, along with other people you know. Make a small mark on a wall in this area with a pencil. Wait a day, and ask the other people how many of them noticed it in a direct and conscious way. Odds are that number will be near zero because even if it caught their eye once, most will not think anything of it. It's a wall.

In the same sense, if you walk past am illusionary wall, it is doing absolutely nothing to attract your attention. Even if the illusion is not quite perfect, in the absence of something really drawing your attention, there's no reason for you to pay attention to it.

Now if you have encountered several illusions in this area already, it's plausible that you might make a deliberate effort to examine the walls, triggering the will save to disbelieve. Otherwise, it's just a wall, why would you even look twice?

It's like noticing a trap. If your not deliberately searching, you're mostly just accepting that one bit of floor is just like the rest, and you're not going to notice that trap door until you step on it.

And just to reiterate what has been mentioned, illusions are already a weaker option to pursue, especially since so much DM adjudication is necessary on when and how am illusion becomes apparent. Giving an automatic will save on on sight is completely crippling. Always remember, it may not seem like a problem with NPC illusionists because they don't exist outside of the encounter, so a failed save is just one save. When a player has an automatic chance at failure in every single encounter, they are going to rack up a large number of frustrating moments. Especially since as noted, more opponents mean less chance of success.

And to counter your example, why should a level 20 wizard always have a 5% chance of a level 1 commoner automatically seeing they his illusions? In fact, by your rules, a level 20 wizard at a country fair is going to always be called out by at least one person in a crowd of he tries to use illusions to put on a show.

[TIPOT]

I see what you're saying.

How would you handle an illusionary wall blocking something? would a 20th level wizard really not have a chance to realize a wall created by minor image from a 4th level caster is just an illusion because he isn't studying it?

20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

So an easy spellcraft check can identity it

[AnachroNinja]

I'm not gonna lie, I would not under any circumstances allow spellcraft to identify illusions. Their very nature is to not be detectable. That's like using spellcraft to see an invisible wizard because empty space is as visible effect of the Spell. I'm not really sure of the RAW here, but I wouldn't allow it. Especially since that DC is trivial.

[Troacctid]

I'm not gonna lie, I would not under any circumstances allow spellcaster to identify illusions. Their very nature is to not be detectable. That's like using spellcraft to see an invisible wizard because empty space is as visible effect of the Spell. I'm not really sure of the RAW here, but I wouldn't allow it. Especially since that DC is trivial.

Well that's blatantly unfair, isn't it? Literally the whole point of Detect Magic is to locate active spells and identify them, including what school of magic they belong to. And I'm sure it'll go over great with your players when you tell them that their True Seeing spell doesn't let them see through illusions when that was the entire reason why they cast it.

[Segev]

Detect magic will reveal a magic effect where the illusion is, and the aura if the mage studies it. Yes, this can be a give-away, or at least reason to make that Disbelief save.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well that's blatantly unfair, isn't it? Literally the whole point of Detect Magic is to locate active spells and identify them, including what school of magic they belong to. And I'm sure it'll go over great with your players when you tell them that their True Seeing spell doesn't let them see through illusions when that was the entire reason why they cast it.

I would hope he meant that in the -absence- of illusion piercing magic or aura detection he wouldn't allow a player to abuse the language of the spellcraft skill description to bypass the save. The effect of an illusion is clearly still present and visible (barring invisibility, of course) and a liberal take on the rules could be construed as allowing the character to make a spellcraft check upon suspicion of an illusion, bypassing any need for a save or counteracting a failed save if the spellcraft check was the careful study that allowed a save in the first place.

If that is, indeed, what he meant then I agree. Barring some magical means of detecting the spell's aura or to pierce it outright, it's a bit nonsensical to allow a spellcraft check to ignore the fact that the visual representation of an illusion is -supposed- to be concealing or deceiving by its very nature.

[Darth Ultron]

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.

My take is that illusions always have some kind of flaws, but those flaws do not usually become evident because people see what they expect to see. If you get out of that mode and into "looking carefully" (for whatever reason), then you get a save. That could be because you are suspicious, because you are ogling the illusory being, because you are thinking about how to paint the illusory object, whatever. As long as you have moved out of the everyday mode into paying full attention to detail, you get the save.

A really obvious thing for illusions like figments is shadows and blocking light, as well as things like smoke or leaving things the foot prints.

[AnachroNinja]

My auto correct converted spellcraft to spellcaster, sorry for the confusion. It is indeed possible to pierce illusions, just not with spellcraft alone in my games.

I agree that illusions are always flawed in some minor way and that's what the Save represents in my opinion.

Edit: I'm kind of vaguely pleased that despite our arguments kelb, you went with the more reasonable assumption of my intent, I must not always come off as a complete moron :).

[Janthkin]

I tend to use the interpretations espoused by Skip Williams in the "Rules of the Game" articles on Illusions (Part 1 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a), Part 2 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060214a), Part 3 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a), Part 4 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060228a)). They're not anything like all powerful, but reward subtlety and creative thought. What's so particular about one new illusionary tree in the middle of a forest, that you would get a save just for walking past it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm kind of vaguely pleased that despite our arguments kelb, you went with the more reasonable assumption of my intent, I must not always come off as a complete moron :).

Just because we don't always agree doesn't mean I'm going to assume you're comletely off the deep end. I've seen the madness that some people have brought to this forum but they tend to stand out quite boldly as nutters. I bet anyone reading this that's been here a few years can think of at least two or three.