Illusions: Rules (DM) VS Creativity (Player)

[Zeruel]

Hi fellow roleplayers, how are you doing? :smallsmile:

Today I realized I may have some problems in an upcoming game, and felt the need for spiritual guidance.

Our future DM is an experienced one, a common friend, and hasn't had the occasion to run a game in a long time, and we players didn't play seriously for almost the same time, so we all look forward to play this campaign.

Now, my problem is that our group has a tendency to power gaming while always promptly prevented from doing so, and to put aside roleplaying in favor of fast leveling up, and this led the DM to point out that he will not allow cheese and will "stick to the very bone of the rules", aka "if it isn't VERY EXPLICITLY written on some manual you likely won't get to do that", I will just say that he interprets Arcane Thesis in the weakest way possible.

For this game I'm gonna be a illusion-based sorcerer, a setup that really relies on creativity and interpretation, and I always wanted to try it for something important. Unfortunately, because of the fact that these players often tried to break the game, the DM now sees too many things as a menace to balance. I already know I may collide with him about things like what a Silent Image can or can't do, but I got away at least with the possibility to try my loadout before any nerfing.

So I'm asking you well-aged veterans:

1) How can I have fun with my illusions without seeming overpowered? Should I even bother with this particular issue?

2) What possible uses of illusions are often debated about being legal or not?

3) Which of them are most likely to be arbitrarily banned because they are considered OP while still being legal?

3a) How could a DM reasonably nerf the use of Silent Image to create a concealing wall that works only against enemies (like because I told my allies I was going to cast an illusion so they auto-disbelieve)?

3b) Would such nerf be arbitrary and unreasonable?


Sorry if the questions are silly, I just want this experience of mine to be fun and not like a linear rule-driven videogame, and I want this thread to be feedback for any other player with my same problems.

[Deophaun]

3a) How could a DM reasonably nerf the use of Silent Image to create a concealing wall that works only against enemies (like because I told my allies I was going to cast an illusion so they auto-disbelieve)?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. "Reasonably" is "you told them, so they get a +4 bonus to saves against it if they take an action to study it/interact with it." Because them's the rules.

That assumes the wall is some distance away.

The best way is for the illusionist to actually give his party proof that the wall is an illusion, such as having the illusion of a solid (stone, wood, not fog) wall appear right on top of them so they're inside it. Now they don't have to make a saving throw: disbelief is automatic because passing through a solid object is explicitly listed as proof. There are no reasonable means to nerf this.

The rule of figments is that they are fragile, so fragile they cannot be cast in the presence of someone with Spellcraft, or they will likely know immediately that you just cast silent image and there's no save required for disbelief. You want to cast things that are non-obvious, like the illusion of a tree in a forest, because once someone suspects a figment, they can tear through it with ease.

[Darth Ultron]

1)The big trick with illusions is to not go crazy. The vast majority of DM's don't mind some clever and intresting uses of illusions, but they all most all really hate the annoying player that thinks illusions re some sort of ''I win easy button''.

2)A lot of the problem comes from figment illusions not having a game effect. Like a player will say ''the guards see my scary illusion and run away'', and the DM will say ''no they don't''. You also get the ''what is interaction?'' and ''what would someone believe?''

3.It does depend on if they are ''legal'', but any combat use where it's an ''auto easy win button''.

3a.Why would you need to nerf this? This is a good use for the spell.

3b.Yes?

[Zeruel]

Thanks for the fast reply Darth.

When I said "reasonably" I meant "in a way the DM can let me do it without becoming useless to do such thing", like not having to roll, say, two saves and a skill check just to convince a single first-level bandit I can summon a 10 feet cube of undead to make him flee. At those condictions I'd just drop the character and roll another, something I don't want to do both because I like how I came up with his background and because I don't want to sound whiny to the other players.


1)The big trick with illusions is to not go crazy. The vast majority of DM's don't mind some clever and intresting uses of illusions, but they all most all really hate the annoying player that thinks illusions re some sort of ''I win easy button''.

[...]

3.It does depend on if they are ''legal'', but any combat use where it's an ''auto easy win button''.

3a.Why would you need to nerf this? This is a good use for the spell.

Isn't getting a round free from enemy attacks (until they realize our attacks can pass through that wall so the wall must be fake) the closest thing to a "I win easy button" to a paranoid DM? :smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

In combat illusions aren't super great. Enemies with spellcraft will likely identify the illusion as you are casting that, either giving them proof it's fake or automatically prompting a will save, depending on the DM.

[Venger]

I wrote a post about how to use illusions a while back. here you go:


the name of the game is absolutely to keep your enemies guessing. If I had to sum up playing an illusionist effectively in one word, it would be this:

Confusion.

No, not that one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm), but rather the concept as a whole.

The problem that a lot of players who are new to playing illusionists (by which I mean characters who specialise in illusion, not just specialised wizards) run into is trying to focus too narrowly on illusions. What do I mean by this?

Well, illusions are dangerous/useful when paired partially with real things, right? If you hide the secret door that you and the party ducked into with, say, a silent image of smooth stone over the seam so that the guards going up and down the hall, it's really only useful because there was a wall there in the first place for it to blend into, right? You wouldn't just cast a wall in the middle of nowhere, that would look silly.

Think of your magic as a whole like this. you don't need to conjure from whole cloth, you just need to embellish slightly on what is already there. Like when you're trying to make a master of disguise, when you're not impersonating a specific individual, but rather want a safe "adventuring face'', you always go for "minor details only" since it grants a +5 to the check.

By the same token of logic, there is often an advantage to being subtle with your illusions rather than bombastic with them. Remember the adage about special effects in movies, a contemporary example of IRL illusions: If you notice it's there, then it's failed.

First timers with illusion spells are tempted to do stuff like make dragons appear to ward off enemies with the x image spells. the shortish duration, limited range they can move around in, and their high likelihood (in most cases) to be "interacted with" in the form of attack makes them generally poor choices.

Think of illusion as an optical illusion (technically, it is anyway) and your job as supplying the enemy with what they are expecting to see rather than what they're not.

You're running down that stone hallway again away from the guard patrol. there is a T intersection at the end. Wat do? Don't make a wall, they know the halls, they'll be entitled to a save or might just open fire. make a silent image of long shadows falling in the opposite direction.

You seldom want to surprise your enemies with illusion. Quite the opposite, you want to lull them into a false sense of security. This makes it much more satisfying (and fun) when you go in for the kill, depending on your preferred method of dispatch.

What I've been talking about up till now is using illusion on its own. But, since it's more of a garnish than a main dish, and a caster can't survive on illusions alone, you'll probably be supplementing it with other kinds of spells too (whether it be through other schools as a wizard, through wands as a beguiler, or through other slots as a sorcerer or chameleon, since I don't know exactly what kind of class you're planning on)

since illusions function best by building off what's "already there" as it were, like by covering the seam for the secret door earlier on, they go really well with conjuration spells.

the consequence for believing an illusory allip is real? waste your actions for a few rounds.

the consequences for failing to believe a real allip is real? enjoy your wis drain.

If you have summoning spells in your repetoire, a great way to enhance their usefulness on the battlefield is by supplementing them with illusions via spells like minor image (especially for monsters like allips, who don't make any discernable sound) or phantom battle.

if you can summon one allip in a battle, you're a real badass, but if you can suddenly summon 2 or 3, then your enemies will be quite disheartened. assuming one makes the save against a fake, after the real one drains some wis from one of them, they won't know what to think, and that can really turn the tide in a battle that you're (in actuality) outnumbered in.

just as making things appear (with the "image" line, nightmare terrain, illusory pit, etc) is an important part of illusion, so too is making things disappear. invisibility is good for more than just getting SA dice an extra time (though it is pretty great at that)

you're running down the hallway (again) from the guard patrol. there is no T intersection or turns. no secret door either, your DM is wise to your ways. wat do? A wall won't work, he reminds you, they patrol this place regularly and know how long the hall is by exactly how many paces they take every day. not wholly unreasonable, you think.

well then, if a fake wall that they can see is out, then the inverse must also be true. wall of stone + invisibility (or invisible spell if your DM is okay with that use of it) = winning. the guards see you going down the hall plain as day and chase after to hit a stone wall. you could probably wrangle a little damage out of that (it'd hurt) and they'd certainly be confused about how to overcome a wall that they can't see (digging/pickaxing their way through would be difficult without being able to ascertain progress) and depending on the height of the ceiling, you might be able to prevent them from climbing over by sealing off your escape route entirely.

while the specifics may vary depending on exactly what kind of character you want to play, just remember:

fake things can only blend in when there's something to blend in with. either use the environment or conjure something. you always want there to be a consequence for the enemy when they disbelieve your illusions.

good luck!

[Zeruel]

In combat illusions aren't super great. Enemies with spellcraft will likely identify the illusion as you are casting that, either giving them proof it's fake or automatically prompting a will save, depending on the DM.

Sadly true, but my character is HIGHLY flavoured, and he has very few means to deliver actual damage until he gets Shadow Conj and the likes, so I have to stick to the idea that I'll be no mailman despite being a sorcerer...

But anyway, there are lots of great illusion spells, at a certain point I won't even need to do the damage myself or even not at all (Curse of the Putrid Husk, Phantasmal Killer, Sensory Deprivation, Solipsism...)

EDIT:
Thank you Venger, I'll need lots. Thanks for the tips (^^)b

[Knight Magenta]

To people that says spellcraft defeats illusions, consider this:

You have 2 wizards, 1 casts minor image, the other is invisible and casts summon monster 2 with a silent rod. Your "clever" opponent disbelieves the "illusion" and then what? Is he auto hit? Can the monster CDG him? Even if you are supremely confident you have to respect the illusion. Heck, the wizard can have some obscure PrC that lets all his image spells be partially real or some such.

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a) is the best ruling on illusions I've seen. Comes from WotC even. The TL;DR is that to get a save vs an illusion, you must at least spend a standard action interacting with it.

[Deophaun]

You have 2 wizards, 1 casts minor image, the other is invisible and casts summon monster 2 with a silent rod. Your "clever" opponent disbelieves the "illusion" and then what?
He sees the minor image become a translucent outline of the intended illusion. The summoned monster does not. He may make a separate Spellcraft check at a DC of 23 to identify the summon as originating from summon monster II.

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a) is the best ruling on illusions I've seen. Comes from WotC even. The TL;DR is that to get a save vs an illusion, you must at least spend a standard action interacting with it.
There is no save here: you have proof from the Spellcraft check, just as you would have proof if you fell through an illusory floor (falling is a free action, not standard). That means disbelief is automatic.

[Knight Magenta]

He sees the minor image become a translucent outline of the intended illusion. The summoned monster does not. He may make a separate Spellcraft check at a DC of 23 to identify the summon as originating from summon monster II.

There is no save here: you have proof from the Spellcraft check, just as you would have proof if you fell through an illusory floor (falling is a free action, not standard). That means disbelief is automatic.

That's my point, a spellcraft check is not proof. At best its an indication that there is an illusion somewhere and you should check. If it was proof, then that would invalidate a whole school of magic with a single non-scaling skill check. That's dumb.

The image becoming translucent is a consequence of you having proof, it can't itself be evidence. You are not able to identify that something is not an illusion because it did not become transparent. That just means you failed your save. At best I would let a spellcraft check give you a save.

[Deophaun]

That's my point, a spellcraft check is not proof. At best its an indication that there is an illusion somewhere and you should check.
No.

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.
It is proof because you've identified the thing you are looking at as being the product of minor image.

[Segev]

Generally speaking, if you and the DM are not on the same page as to what illusions can do, I don't recommend playing somebody dependent on them.

That said, I am fond of silent images of fog and similar effects. Give your allies a signal that is pre-agreed to let them know this is an illusion. They now get +4 to their saves against it, while the enemies shouldn't even get a save, at least not until they've entered it and even then it's arguable. Your allies who make the save have unobscured vision. Your enemies are blinded by it.

[Darth Ultron]

That said, I am fond of silent images of fog and similar effects. Give your allies a signal that is pre-agreed to let them know this is an illusion. They now get +4 to their saves against it, while the enemies shouldn't even get a save, at least not until they've entered it and even then it's arguable. Your allies who make the save have unobscured vision. Your enemies are blinded by it.

This is a good example of the start of the crazy reasoning that illusions can do anything. and just to note the rules do clearly say: Because figments are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

So the idea that you can ''make fog'' or darkness or anything else, with a real game effect like blindness would not seem possible. And if you can make an illusion that blinds someone, what is the limit? Could you make an illusionary light so bright that it blinds someone permanently? If not, why not? And if an illusion like silent image can cause blindness, can it cause other things like deafness or loss of other senses?

And see that just leads down the slippery slope of ''making an illusion of a vacuum and people in it ''think'' themselves to death'' or making a ''one foot high bridge look like it's a billion feet high and having people die from fright".

[Deophaun]

So the idea that you can ''make fog'' or darkness or anything else, with a real game effect like blindness would not seem possible. And if you can make an illusion that blinds someone, what is the limit? Could you make an illusionary light so bright that it blinds someone permanently? If not, why not? And if an illusion like silent image can cause blindness, can it cause other things like deafness or loss of other senses?

And see that just leads down the slippery slope of ''making an illusion of a vacuum and people in it ''think'' themselves to death'' or making a ''one foot high bridge look like it's a billion feet high and having people die from fright".
This is a good example of the start of crazy reasoning that illusions can't do anything.

Blindness is a condition. A fog cloud, meanwhile, provides concealment, which is what happens when someone does not have LoS to you:

One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker’s accuracy. Typically, concealment is provided by fog, smoke, shadowy illumination, darkness, tall grass, foliage, or magical effects that make it difficult to pinpoint a target’s location.
Now, are you honestly going to say that if silent image is used to create an illusory wall, that wall does not make it difficult to know where the people on the other side of it are?

[Telok]

Two things to try that will find out if the DM is on board with illusions or intends to nerf the heck out of them.

First, throw down an illusion of a Wall of Thorns. Immobile, silent, concealing, and based off a real spell. If monsters go around or over it and don't shoot through it then that's good. If you get "They know that's a druid spell and you're obviously a wizard" or everything in line of sight rolls a skill check or Will save immediately, don't use illusions. On the plus side you can now claim automatic free skill rolls every time you encounter magic in any form.

Second, get a potion/scroll of invisibility and one of the Amber Amulets of Vermin from the Magic Item Compendium and give them to your party rogue. Next fight, while the rogue is invisible, cast an illusion. The illusion is of an ant squished under your shoe, the rogue uses the amulet. If the enemy makes a skill roll or just knows that you cast an illusion they ought to ignore the summoned vermin until it gets it's full attack on their flat footed AC. If you get "They can tell they're real" then don't use illusions.

Of course if you go in for the 110% real shadow illusions cheese and you're playing with Mr. AutoSave DM then you can also justly claim your 110% damage.

[Deophaun]

On the plus side you can now claim automatic free skill rolls every time you encounter magic in any form.
Like this?

Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

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.
Will saves, however, require interaction by RAW, so they're not free. But skill checks are better than free.

[Segev]

The way you check if an illusion can provide a particular effect is to read its rules. Silent image can't create light, so the idea that it could blind someone with a flash of light is obviously false by the rules of the spell. That creatures who fail to disbelieve cannot see through it, however, is part of the spell description. Or at least strongly implied as the converse since succeeding on disbelief makes it become transparent to the creature.

[Telok]

Like this?
Will saves, however, require interaction by RAW, so they're not free. But skill checks are better than free.
Except that since the person rolling, presuming they make the check, knows something is an illusion then they have evidence of it's ficticious nature and get a save. In addition, if you go all out with that you'll have lots and lots of rolls to make every time there's magic around. Someone walks by with a Hat of Disguise? Everyone with spellcraft rolls to know it. A warlock enters the room with buffs up, start rolling. The hyper vigilant auto-detection paradigm slows things down in addition to making sure none of your players ever use illusions except the 110% real shadow cheese where they can justly cry foul if you don't make the rolls and saves.

My group solves this by only rolling when the character is suspicious or curious about something and pays specific attention to it. We never spam skill rolls because most of the time the Fireball is real anyways and all that rolling slows the game down.

[Darth Ultron]

The way you check if an illusion can provide a particular effect is to read its rules. Silent image can't create light, so the idea that it could blind someone with a flash of light is obviously false by the rules of the spell. That creatures who fail to disbelieve cannot see through it, however, is part of the spell description. Or at least strongly implied as the converse since succeeding on disbelief makes it become transparent to the creature.

Well, the rules don't say silent image can cause blindness. The same way they don't say you can give any condition to any creature with a figment type illusion. You can't ''make a figment type illusion so scary they a creature becomes shaken or panicked''.

Most people on the side of ''silent image can do anything'' would say silent image can create darkness, right? So why can't it create ''an illusion'' of light? Or make ''an illusion of darkness so dark it blinds someone like a dark flash''?

I don't think the rules ever say it, but a good guideline is: Figments cannot duplicate spells. It's nice and easy and simple.

[Deophaun]

Except that since the person rolling, presuming they make the check, knows something is an illusion then they have evidence of it's ficticious nature and get a save.
You were talking about throwing down an imitation of a real spell. I assumed that was in combat. If you are putting it down outside of combat, where no one sees it come into being, and you're just imitating a normal thorn bush instead of a magical spell (as who knows how the magical version actually looks and acts), then fine.

In addition, if you go all out with that you'll have lots and lots of rolls to make every time there's magic around. Someone walks by with a Hat of Disguise? Everyone with spellcraft rolls to know it. A warlock enters the room with buffs up, start rolling. The hyper vigilant auto-detection paradigm slows things down in addition to making sure none of your players ever use illusions except the 110% real shadow cheese where they can justly cry foul if you don't make the rolls and saves.
You do realize that arcane sight and at-will detect magic are things, right? If it's giving off a magic aura, you're darn right they get a roll. If you think it slows things down, create a tear sheet for the checks ahead of time.

Well, the rules don't say silent image can cause blindness.
Do you really think Segev was talking about inflicting a status condition?

Most people on the side of ''silent image can do anything'' would say silent image can create darkness, right?
What darkness? Something ephemeral and completely black? Absolutely. Just as it can create something ephemeral and completely red, or blue.

So why can't it create ''an illusion'' of light?
All silent images are illusions of light, else it would be impossible for anyone to see it.

Or make ''an illusion of darkness so dark it blinds someone like a dark flash''?
Show me the general rule for inflicting the blindness condition on someone with light/darkness, just as I showed you the general rule for obscuring someone's position providing concealment.

Although, if there was such a rule, it just mean that your own straw man would have a stronger position than you.

[Segev]

Well, the rules don't say silent image can cause blindness. The same way they don't say you can give any condition to any creature with a figment type illusion. You can't ''make a figment type illusion so scary they a creature becomes shaken or panicked''. I'm not. I'm making fog. Fog creates obscurement. I never said it gave the "blinded" condition. I said it blinds them. This is English, not game-term, blind. Meaning, here, "they can't see anything, so invoke the rules for not seeing anything."

Again: those fooled by it are not literally blind. They just have fog between their eyes and anything they want to see.


Most people on the side of ''silent image can do anything'' would say silent image can create darkness, right? So why can't it create ''an illusion'' of light? Or make ''an illusion of darkness so dark it blinds someone like a dark flash''?Because the spell explicitly says it can't create light. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about "the spell does what it says it does, and doesn't do what it says it can't do."


I don't think the rules ever say it, but a good guideline is: Figments cannot duplicate spells. It's nice and easy and simple.That's a nice house rule, except where it leads to totally nonsensical situations. Such as a silent image of a brick wall failing to work because it would be duplicating the effect of illusory wall. Or a silent image of a cloud of fog being 100% see-through without anybody having to make a save.

[Deophaun]

Because the spell explicitly says it can't create light.
Not in the PHB or SRD it doesn't.

[Segev]

Not in the PHB or SRD it doesn't.

I stand corrected. I must've been conflating it with 5e's version. My apologies.

That said, it can't "create real effects." Which implies that, at most, you can create the illusion of light. Which won't light up real objects. But perhaps could light up illusory ones, in the sense that those illusory objects have "being lit up" as part of their illusion.

Note: "darkness" or "fog" as "something through which you cannot see" is not a "real effect" in the sense written there, any more than "barrel behind which the halfling can hide" is a "real effect." The spell creates visual illusions of things, so any argument that results in those visual illusions not being, well, visual illusions is going to fail.

[hector212121]

Here's my suggestion:When you get Greater Shadow Conjuration, combine with Major Creation. So let's say you take out a bridge. You immediately replace it with a seemingly intact one. When enemies go to cross, either they somehow make it partway across(at which point you shout at them that the bridge isn't real, increasing their save) or else they make their will to disbelieve.... and find that they're now five times heavier to the bridge. Oops. ;)

The good thing about Shadow Conjuration is you can create scenarios where people DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE THEIR WILL SAVES, YET DON'T KNOW THAT.

[Deophaun]

That said, it can't "create real effects."
Not quite:

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
The last sentence is for the benefit of Darth Ultron.

It's not "cannot produce real effects, period," and as I've stated, illusions must be able to create light in order to be seen at all. 5e's limitation just makes illusions more nonsensical. Besides, that's more of a tool for the DM to have fun with than the players. I had a perfectly lit dungeon once, except for one room, which was lit by a permanent image of a wall with several torch holders. The problem was the first volley of attacks blatantly came through the wall. After a chorus of "I roll to disbelieve!" the half of the party without darkvision found themselves unable to see anything and fumbling for torches in pitch blackness.

[Zanos]

Except that since the person rolling, presuming they make the check, knows something is an illusion then they have evidence of it's ficticious nature and get a save. In addition, if you go all out with that you'll have lots and lots of rolls to make every time there's magic around. Someone walks by with a Hat of Disguise? Everyone with spellcraft rolls to know it. A warlock enters the room with buffs up, start rolling. The hyper vigilant auto-detection paradigm slows things down in addition to making sure none of your players ever use illusions except the 110% real shadow cheese where they can justly cry foul if you don't make the rolls and saves.

My group solves this by only rolling when the character is suspicious or curious about something and pays specific attention to it. We never spam skill rolls because most of the time the Fireball is real anyways and all that rolling slows the game down.
I think it's pretty ridiculous that a trained and skilled magician who could identify magic at a glance doesn't get a check because the player didn't point out that they were suspicious. I don't generally prompt for rolls for that stuff, but if someone has enough spellcraft that they aren't going to fail the check on a 1, I'm not going to bother. You could also make arguments about obnoxious rolling for often handwaved game mechanics. You technically need to make a DC 10 listen check to understand someone next to you, and nobody bothers rolling spot for stuff that's obvious, even if there is technically a DC. I just treat spellcraft as magical spot.

I guess illusions are pretty great if you ignore the only skill in the game that lets you identify magical effects. Personally I'm fine with characters with high spellcraft not generally having a problem with illusions. It just reinforces that illusions are amazing against people who are ignorant about magic, which I think suits the fluff of illusions just fine. In combat illusionists are terrible against educated foes anyway, since every cast gets a spellcraft check to identify the casting anyway.

And honestly, even if you don't allow spellcraft to operate in that fashion, permanent detect magic/arcane sight pretty much destroys illusions anyway.

[stanprollyright]

1) How can I have fun with my illusions without seeming overpowered? Should I even bother with this particular issue?

2) What possible uses of illusions are often debated about being legal or not?

3) Which of them are most likely to be arbitrarily banned because they are considered OP while still being legal?

3a) How could a DM reasonably nerf the use of Silent Image to create a concealing wall that works only against enemies (like because I told my allies I was going to cast an illusion so they auto-disbelieve)?

3b) Would such nerf be arbitrary and unreasonable?
.

1. There are an infinite amount of fun out-of-combat ways to use the "__ image" line. Using these spells in combat is where you might get into trouble. However, there are plenty of in-combat illusions that are completely straightforward and non-OP (mirror image, phantasmal killer, color spray, glitterdust, invis). Shadow conjuration/evocation isn't that OP if you don't devote your character to quasireality shenanigans.

2. Judging by this thread, it's: Can "___ image" can duplicate other spells and/or cause real effects in combat (such as blocking LoS with an illusory cloud)?
When do you get a spellcraft check vs an illusion? What does "interacting with" a spell mean?

3. I don't think any of them are likely to get banned, since it's so easy to call for spellcraft checks and will saves. Shadowcraft Mage might get banned outright, but I don't see why shadow evocation/conjuration would.

3a. Again, I'd say this comes down to reasonable usage of will saves and spellcraft.

3b. Clarify with your DM what counts as "interacting" with an illusion, what calls for a save, and what calls for a check. For instance, being in/passing through the same square as an illusion: will save. Being in the square next to it (and otherwise not interacting with it in any meaningful way): no will save. In combat, not flat-footed: save. (dis)Believing the illusion will result in direct damage (illusory bridge): save. (dis)Believing the illusion is merely an inconvenience ("I guess they went down the other hallway"): no save. They know you're an illusionist: yes spellcraft. You are observed: spellcraft, always. The illusion would take a DC 10 or higher spot check to notice even if it was/n't real (making/covering a small hole in the wall): no will save unless another condition would trigger it and you make the spot.

EDIT: As a GM I wouldn't want to make all those saves and checks if I don't have to, but I also don't want you to wreck my game with one spell. I'd say if you stayed away from 110% quasireality cheese then I'd be pretty OK with most everything else, and I'd only hit you with checks and saves on a common-sense basis like the examples above. I'm fine with using image spells for utility/RP and for a creative combat trick here or there.

[SangoProduction]

I would personally not play illusionist in this type of group. Illusions require DM buy-in more than any other thing in the game, even the Paladin. If there's going to be consternation about misinterpreting rules (especially when they are vague enough already), then...yeah, probably not a great idea.

If you really want to play an illusionist, work with the DM for a more concrete ruleset.

[Troacctid]

It would be pretty weird if major image couldn't duplicate the effects of silent image.

[Exocist]

It would be pretty weird if major image couldn't duplicate the effects of silent image.

Would be pretty weird if Shadow Evocation/Conjuration (Illusion Spells) couldn't replicate the effects of spells they're supposed to replicate :smalltongue:

It's a general rule, specific cases such as Major/Programmed Image, Shadow X, etc. trump that rule. I believe the rule is more so you don't cast your Fireball (or whatever) then make some Illusions of Fireballs and suddenly everyone everywhere is taking d6s of damage from your 1st level spells because they "believe" the fireballs are real.

[DracoknightZero]

I recommend talking to the DM in question about this rather than the peanute gallery, noone else knows what better what will and will not work in this setup.

[Segev]

Not quite:

The last sentence is for the benefit of Darth Ultron.Ah, thanks for the clarification.


It's not "cannot produce real effects, period," and as I've stated, illusions must be able to create light in order to be seen at all. 5e's limitation just makes illusions more nonsensical. Besides, that's more of a tool for the DM to have fun with than the players. I had a perfectly lit dungeon once, except for one room, which was lit by a permanent image of a wall with several torch holders. The problem was the first volley of attacks blatantly came through the wall. After a chorus of "I roll to disbelieve!" the half of the party without darkvision found themselves unable to see anything and fumbling for torches in pitch blackness.

While I think your way of running it is quite cool, I will point out that it's not actually all that nonsensical to have illusions incapable of producing light. All it means is that it's creating a magical effect that reflects light as if there were a real object there.

The most believable sort of holograms modern technology can create actually don't natively emit light, either. They are, instead, careful constructs of mirror-reflected images of real objects. The first one I ever saw was actually of a spring standing upright. In reality, the real object was a spring upside-down in a box below where I was looking. But the spring itself didn't emit light, and neither did the illusory spring; the light came from a normal light source bouncing off the spring (and thence off a mirror to create the illusion).

So a magical illusion could fail to emit light, but still reflect it. (When you start claiming it can do NEITHER, though, it stops being a "figment" that makes sense as anything other than a mind-affecting effect.)

[Deophaun]

While I think your way of running it is quite cool, I will point out that it's not actually all that nonsensical to have illusions incapable of producing light. All it means is that it's creating a magical effect that reflects light as if there were a real object there.
The problem is, real objects don't work that way. Yes, they reflect light, but they also absorb and emit it. Practically everything glows to some extent or another under light. Prevent illusions from doing that and they should all look fake with a quick glance, like an old CGI effect in a live-action film.

[Segev]

The problem is, real objects don't work that way. Yes, they reflect light, but they also absorb and emit it. Practically everything glows to some extent or another under light. Prevent illusions from doing that and they should all look fake with a quick glance, like an old CGI effect in a live-action film.

Again, not really. Very few objects emit light in the visual spectrum. "Absorb light" is just a function of how the reflection works. Again, not really a problem.

[Scorponok]

What makes the 3.5 ed version of Silent Image so powerful is the 'interaction' part of it. Make an illusion of a monster too scary, and no one wants to interact with it.

In 5e, the NPCs get a will (*cough* wisdom) save to disbelieve the illusion immediately as they see it. (In my campaign I homebrewed a medium-cost potion to do this.) This is a huge nerf, but one I would agree with when comparing the effective utility of 1st-level spells. This is probably the easiest way to deal with it. It is still powerful if we're talking about 1 or 2 characters making the save, is still pretty effective vs. classes with low will saves, but isn't something that can make an army flee on site.

Arguable whether minions should get the same thing with higher level illusion spells.

[Segev]

Actually, it requires a round of "study" to get an Investigation check (Int-based) to see through silent image in 5e. Interaction automatically reveals its falsehood (and arguments abound over whether this means "interaction of any sort at all" or merely "interaction which should have felt something but didn't").

[Deophaun]

Again, not really. Very few objects emit light in the visual spectrum. "Absorb light" is just a function of how the reflection works. Again, not really a problem.
Well, here's your bigger problem:

This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you.
You can make a silent image of lightning or fire; if these things can only reflect light, then it isn't an illusion of lightning, but an illusion of a very big, branching noodle painted white and blue, like you would find on a mini.

[Telok]

You do realize that arcane sight and at-will detect magic are things, right? If it's giving off a magic aura, you're darn right they get a roll. If you think it slows things down, create a tear sheet for the checks ahead of time.

That's sort of the problem, the way you run the rules (which is quite RAW and accurate) anyone with a single rank of Spellcraft within line of sight of a visible illusion gets the free roll. Success on the roll is evidence of an illusion which means they automatically get the save. Even if they fail the save they still know it's an illusion and can ignore it or just take actions to disbelieve. It's not just players that can't use illusions under this, it's you the DM too. PC parties are usually caster heavy so you pretty much can't use illusions because they all get automatic rolls as soon as they perceive it.

Plus if you're doing it with all spells, as RAW, then by the time you're mid levels... Well, my group has three full casters and two partial casters. At 9th level there's usually 3 to 6 spells up per full caster and usually one or two up per partial caster, all day every day. So they walk into a room full of cultists in a dungeon and it's 15 or more rolls per enemy caster (usually a cleric and two adept acolytes, sometimes a witch and two warlocks) on the DM's side and five to ten rolls for four players plus anything the other three players have from potions or items, and they’ve got about a 50% to 60% success rate. That's 60d20 plus checking against which spells are on before you even roll initiative, and three of the players don't get to participate. And I forgot about the familiars, they get rolls too.

So yeah, we totally ignore that unless the player gets suspicious and wants to roll. As a bonus we get to use illusions too.

[Zanos]

You have to "see or detect" the spell for that check. Most buffs don't have listed visual effects. Only someone with arcane sight up gets to make those rolls, really.

That said, at the levels you're referring to, spellcraft modifiers are high enough and the DC low enough that succeeding on a die 1 isn't really unreasonable. Since knowing what buffs your enemies have up is pretty crucial information, if I was running a permanent arcane sight or something similar, I'd be kind of miffed as a player if the DM told me he didn't feel like rolling dice, so I didn't know.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Pretty much the only solutions to the "Spellcraft auto-detects illusions" problems without houserules or really stretched rules interpretations are the Conceal Spellcasting skill trick and expanded Sleight of Hand rules from Races of Stone, both of which let you conceal the fact that you're casting a spell and thus preventing opponents from using Spellcraft (since you must be able to see or hear a spell's V or S components to identify it), and the False Theurgy skill trick which lets you, for instance, make a major image of a demon show up as a summon monster as far as Spellcraft is concerned.

You can also do the reverse and make your other spells detect as illusions, if you want to mess with people. False Theurgy is only 1/encounter, of course, but after the first time someone dismisses your "major image" as harmless only to get smacked in the face by a very real demon, they'll probably act more cautious around your illusions (and your "illusions") for a bit in case you have another such trick up your sleeve.

[Deophaun]

Success on the roll is evidence of an illusion which means they automatically get the save.
Success on the roll is proof it's a figment, as you know precisely what spell is making the effect. So, no save: automatic disbelief.

Good news is that's one less roll for you.

But you've acknowledged you're house-ruling, and I can't really disagree with it. Illusions are perhaps too fragile by RAW, at least until you get someone who really knows how to work them. Gnome illusionists do get around this, although, while you still need to make a saving throw when confronted with proof, you get a +10 bonus so... not that useful offensively (it's really good for shadowcraft mages that want to make Shadow Conjuration versions of create magic tattoo or phantasmal steed, as then they can actually use them).

since you must be able to see or hear a spell's V or S components to identify it
Only if you're doing a DC 15+spell level check. Otherwise, you can do it with DC 20+spell level check by just looking at the spell.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Only if you're doing a DC 15+spell level check. Otherwise, you can do it with DC 20+spell level check by just looking at the spell.

Yes, I should have specified I was referring to having illusions IDed as you cast them, since all those abilities only affect Spellcraft checks during the casting; there's nothing you can do if the illusion is already active, aside from hoping they roll low.

The best (houseruled) solution I've seen to the existing illusions issue is to only allow Spellcraft checks to recognize illusions once you interact with them enough to get the Will save, by the reasoning that "Defeat Illusion" wouldn't be a DC 80 epic Spot or Listen check if illusions were meant to be identifiable as such on sight. Succeed on the Will save and you get to make the Spellcraft check, fail the save and a "successful" Spellcraft check tells you that the illusion is actually what it appears to be, as the illusion's magic overrides your judgment of the situation.

[Segev]

Well, here's your bigger problem:

You can make a silent image of lightning or fire; if these things can only reflect light, then it isn't an illusion of lightning, but an illusion of a very big, branching noodle painted white and blue, like you would find on a mini.

Have you ever seen a painting where the fire in it seemed almost to glow? I figure illusory fire and lightning do the same.

That said, if you argue that they can make light, so be it. It's not like they're more efficient means of doing so than the purpose-built spells. Given that it doesn't specify that it can produce light sufficiently bright to induce blindness, it probably can't. Whether it can be bright enough to dazzle or afflict those who have the racial trait that makes them dazzled in normal daylight or not would be a DM call.

[Deophaun]

Have you ever seen a painting where the fire in it seemed almost to glow?
Nope, though maybe I just have a high Will save.

Given that it doesn't specify that it can produce light sufficiently bright to induce blindness, it probably can't. Whether it can be bright enough to dazzle or afflict those who have the racial trait that makes them dazzled in normal daylight or not would be a DM call.
Actually, it specifies that it cannot:

Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

[Segev]

Nope, though maybe I just have a high Will save.Or not seen a sufficiently well-painted fire. The effect is quite impressive. (It isn't glowing. You "know" it isn't glowing. If lights go dim, it is clearly not emitting light. But it looks like it is.)


Actually, it specifies that it cannot:

Ah, fair enough!

[sleepyphoenixx]

Personally i interpret the spellcraft rules for identifying a spell in place such that you need to actually recognize that the illusionary whatever is magic first to get a spellcraft roll, like with Detect Magic.
Otherwise it looks just like a normal whatever to you and you don't get a spellcraft roll.

As for Detect Magic, Arcane Sight and similar spells making illusions useless, that's why smart illusion specialists get Insidious Magic. It's pretty much made for that and the prerequisite, Shadow Weave Magic, is useful enough since you want to pump your spell DCs anyway.

For those low on feats there's also spells like Magic Aura and Nondetection, which should be staples for any caster in a game that properly uses Detect Magic and Arcane Sight, but those obviously don't work on figments (them not being creatures or objects).

[Knight Magenta]

I think a strict reading of the DC to identify a spell rule basically makes illusions useless. I mean, you can use them out of combat, but that's lame. If I am playing an adventuring illusionist, I want to confuse and befuddles my enemies. I want them to be so confused that they run around like the three stooges while my allies clean up. Its dumb that I need to take 4 feats just to have my shtick work at all.

Also, the identify DC does not scale with levels. That means that at low levels illusions work, while at high levels every enemy just auto succeeds.

In summary: talk to your DM, then decide if you can play an illusionist in his campaign.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I think a strict reading of the DC to identify a spell rule basically makes illusions useless. I mean, you can use them out of combat, but that's lame. If I am playing an adventuring illusionist, I want to confuse and befuddles my enemies. I want them to be so confused that they run around like the three stooges while my allies clean up. Its dumb that I need to take 4 feats just to have my shtick work at all.


The main problem here is with figments, not illusion in general. Figments are very open to different interpretations and aren't particularly effective combat spells anyway unless you're a SCM.
I really don't see why a single line of spells needs to be perfectly usable in all situations without any investment. There's not just Silent Image in the school.

Illusions are perfectly usable if you pick the right spell for the right situation, at least until True Seeing becomes more-or-less standard on enemies.
Then you need Insidious Magic or at least something like Nondetection, but other builds need to specialize to stay effective at higher levels too.
"I want to be really good at X, but i don't want to spend feats/class levels/skill points on X" is not how D&D works. Unless you're a conjurer or a druid at least.

[stanprollyright]

The main problem here is with figments, not illusion in general. Figments are very open to different interpretations and aren't particularly effective combat spells anyway unless you're a SCM.
I really don't see why a single line of spells needs to be perfectly usable in all situations without any investment. There's not just Silent Image in the school

+1

If you're gonna use Silent Image as an all-purpose save-or-suck, you'd better have the DCs of a save-or-suck caster. It's pretty easy to see the RAI here.

[Quertus]

That's sort of the problem, the way you run the rules (which is quite RAW and accurate) anyone with a single rank of Spellcraft within line of sight of a visible illusion gets the free roll. Success on the roll is evidence of an illusion which means they automatically get the save. Even if they fail the save they still know it's an illusion and can ignore it or just take actions to disbelieve. It's not just players that can't use illusions under this, it's you the DM too. PC parties are usually caster heavy so you pretty much can't use illusions because they all get automatic rolls as soon as they perceive it.

Yes. Not all monsters - or even all suboptimal characters - have spellcraft. Those who understand magic understand illusions, and are better able to identify them. But this doesn't prevent people - players and DM - using illusions on everyone else.


Plus if you're doing it with all spells, as RAW, then by the time you're mid levels... Well, my group has three full casters and two partial casters. At 9th level there's usually 3 to 6 spells up per full caster and usually one or two up per partial caster, all day every day. So they walk into a room full of cultists in a dungeon and it's 15 or more rolls per enemy caster (usually a cleric and two adept acolytes, sometimes a witch and two warlocks) on the DM's side and five to ten rolls for four players plus anything the other three players have from potions or items, and they’ve got about a 50% to 60% success rate. That's 60d20 plus checking against which spells are on before you even roll initiative, and three of the players don't get to participate. And I forgot about the familiars, they get rolls too.

So yeah, we totally ignore that unless the player gets suspicious and wants to roll. As a bonus we get to use illusions too.

When I type up my encounters, for any NPC spellcaster, I list out all of their dwoemers. This allows me to easily modify their stats should one or more of their dwoemers end. If my players cared, it'd be easy enough to collect their spellcraft stats, copy that line of dwoemers into an excel document or custom program, and have the list of what they know prepared ahead of time for them, just like the rest of the description.

And, if my monsters cared about the specifics of what dwoemers the PCs had on them, it'd be just as easy to collect the PCs standard layout, and pre-roll all that during the adventure prep phase.

But, honestly, in a game of rocket tag, we rarely care. About the most interesting things one would likely learn in one of our games is that my signature character seems covered in myriad custom dwoemers which careful observation will reveal do not actually match the dwoemers actually on him... several characters have Hat of Disguise and/or Polymorph effects... and a couple of characters are protected from Remove Disease.

Do you have an initiative of 30 or better? Can you survive ~1000 damage? No? Then you probably didn't get to go, and this information really wasn't all that valuable, was it? :smalltongue:


You have to "see or detect" the spell for that check. Most buffs don't have listed visual effects. Only someone with arcane sight up gets to make those rolls, really.

That said, at the levels you're referring to, spellcraft modifiers are high enough and the DC low enough that succeeding on a die 1 isn't really unreasonable. Since knowing what buffs your enemies have up is pretty crucial information, if I was running a permanent arcane sight or something similar, I'd be kind of miffed as a player if the DM told me he didn't feel like rolling dice, so I didn't know.

Arcane sight is one of those... basic spells of which my signature character invented a whole slew of improved variants. Yeah, I like to be informed. My DMs came up with an easy solution: don't send many spellcasting foes / foes with dwoemers against him. :smalltongue:


I think a strict reading of the DC to identify a spell rule basically makes illusions useless. I mean, you can use them out of combat, but that's lame. If I am playing an adventuring illusionist, I want to confuse and befuddles my enemies. I want them to be so confused that they run around like the three stooges while my allies clean up. Its dumb that I need to take 4 feats just to have my shtick work at all.

Also, the identify DC does not scale with levels. That means that at low levels illusions work, while at high levels every enemy just auto succeeds.

In summary: talk to your DM, then decide if you can play an illusionist in his campaign.

As I said above, they only fail against foes with spellcraft.

I think, "at high levels, foo just fails" is pretty common. In this regard, illusions have it easy, as there's still monsters in epic which don't have spellcraft.

[Zanos]

I think a strict reading of the DC to identify a spell rule basically makes illusions useless. I mean, you can use them out of combat, but that's lame. If I am playing an adventuring illusionist, I want to confuse and befuddles my enemies. I want them to be so confused that they run around like the three stooges while my allies clean up. Its dumb that I need to take 4 feats just to have my shtick work at all.

Also, the identify DC does not scale with levels. That means that at low levels illusions work, while at high levels every enemy just auto succeeds.

In summary: talk to your DM, then decide if you can play an illusionist in his campaign.
I think trying to trick intelligent opponents who are well trained in magical theory with illusionary magic is a bad idea, and players should have a hard time of it if they chose to employee that tactic against something that is logically very resilient to it. You can't use enchantment spells against a lot of enemies, you can't use necromancy spells on constructs, and you probably shouldn't try to cast evocations on enemies with SR. Don't use illusions on people who know better. Even dedicated enchanters prepare spells that work on things that aren't humanoids. At least, the living ones do. Illusionists should be expected to have fallback spells as well. Or just use shadow spells.

And the DC does scale with spell level. Hitting a 20+ is fairly difficult, even at high levels, without significant investment.

[Deophaun]

And the DC does scale with spell level. Hitting a 20+ is fairly difficult, even at high levels, without significant investment.
An Int-based character at level 8 will likely have a +18/19 to the check from 11 ranks, a 20/22 Int, and the +2 synergy bonus from Knowledge (arcana). At this level, getting a +5 circumstance bonus to a skill is affordable as well.

[Zanos]

An Int-based character at level 8 will likely have a +18/19 to the check from 11 ranks, a 20/22 Int, and the +2 synergy bonus from Knowledge (arcana). At this level, getting a +5 circumstance bonus to a skill is affordable as well.
They will. They have maximum ranks in a class skill, and a high corresponding ability. They were the magical experts that I was describing that you shouldn't be using illusions on.

Joe Schmoe with 10-14 intelligence and cross class ranks in spellcraft is going to have a harder time.

[Knight Magenta]

Its not a case of "smarter opponents are more resilient to illusions" though. Its more that if the enemy party has even a single character with moderate spellcraft, your figments auto-fail against them and all of their allies.

[Quertus]

Its not a case of "smarter opponents are more resilient to illusions" though. Its more that if the enemy party has even a single character with moderate spellcraft, your figments auto-fail against them and all of their allies.

And this is why you don't use illusions vs those who can overcome them, like opposing parties.

[Zanos]

Its not a case of "smarter opponents are more resilient to illusions" though. Its more that if the enemy party has even a single character with moderate spellcraft, your figments auto-fail against them and all of their allies.
Yeah, so don't do that.

[Knight Magenta]

Yeah, so don't do that.

But that eliminates a bunch of cool tropes. For one, you can never use illusions on PCs, for another you can never have two illusionists compete at who is better at trickery.

[Deophaun]

Its not a case of "smarter opponents are more resilient to illusions" though. Its more that if the enemy party has even a single character with moderate spellcraft, your figments auto-fail against them and all of their allies.
No. Their allies get a saving throw with a +4 bonus. It only auto-fails if the character who detected the illusion can do something that provides the others with proof that it's an illusion. This is why creating fog banks is a popular choice for silent image: it's very hard to demonstrate to anyone that the fog they see is an illusion.

[Knight Magenta]

No. Their allies get a saving throw with a +4 bonus. It only auto-fails if the character who detected the illusion can do something that provides the others with proof that it's an illusion. This is why creating fog banks is a popular choice for silent image: it's very hard to demonstrate to anyone that the fog they see is an illusion.


If you make a fog bank, this gives everyone a save. then they get another save at +4 when their resident caster shouts "its an illusion." If your save DC is high enough that this is not an auto-fail for you, then you should be dropping save-or-die effects; or, you know, a real fog cloud :p

Figments only make sense (that is, are useful) if your enemies generally don't get a save against them unless they spend actions. I suppose if you mostly fight non-spellcasters it will work out in those campaigns... but expect table variance. In my current game, we fought spellcasters in 4 of our last 6 fights. And one of the non-spellcaster fights was against a dragon, so there is that. We are only level 5.

[Deophaun]

If you make a fog bank, this gives everyone a save.
No. They need to interact with it to get a save. Now, your DM can hate figments and say that simply walking into the fog bank counts as interaction, but that's on the DM, not the rules.

then they get another save at +4 when their resident caster shouts "its an illusion." If your save DC is high enough that this is not an auto-fail for you, then you should be dropping save-or-die effects; or, you know, a real fog cloud :p
Because the ranges are identical and you will obviously have an SoD that can handle 20 mooks at level 1.

I used a silent image to create a smoke screen that knocked a dozen spread-out archers from the fight at level 4. I don't know of any SoD effect available at that level capable of doing that.

Figments only make sense (that is, are useful) if your enemies generally don't get a save against them unless they spend actions.
And enchantments only make sense (that is, are useful) if your enemies aren't immune to [mind-affecting]. What's your point?

[Knight Magenta]

No. They need to interact with it to get a save. Now, your DM can hate figments and say that simply walking into the fog bank counts as interaction, but that's on the DM, not the rules.

How does one interact with a fog cloud except by walking into it?



Because the ranges are identical and you will obviously have an SoD that can handle 20 mooks at level 1.


You are not fighting 20 mooks and a caster at level 1 :) But if the question is say a wizard and his 3 bodyguards at level 4, then the Save or suck you are dropping is glitter-dust. Which will blind all of the mooks forever with the save DC we are talking about.




I used a silent image to create a smoke screen that knocked a dozen spread-out archers from the fight at level 4. I don't know of any SoD effect available at that level capable of doing that.


If your only use-case for silent image is fog, you might as well use obscuring mist. Remember, your allies have as good a chance of saving as the enemies mooks when the wizard tells them its an illusion.



And enchantments only make sense (that is, are useful) if your enemies aren't immune to [mind-affecting]. What's your point?

That's fair. I suppose that this is the reason most guides tell you not to specialize in enchantments, or to make sure they will work in the campaign that you will be playing. I also think that the number of [mind-affecting] immune creatures is silly. I think [mind-affecting] immunity should be reserved for some mindless creatures. Heck, in most stories, dumber things like insects are easier to control. That's a different story though, this is the illusion thread :p

My only point is that it is hard to make an illusion focused spellcaster if merely being trained in spellcraft is sufficient to best the illusion. I agree that the rules as they exist do most likely work this way, but I think the way they work is lame.

[Zanos]

But that eliminates a bunch of cool tropes. For one, you can never use illusions on PCs, for another you can never have two illusionists compete at who is better at trickery.
I assume the illusionists are not particularly stupid. So why aren't they just using arcane sight? The RAW reading of the spellcraft skill does not provide any more room for two skilled illusionists competing against each other, unless you want to ax large swathes of spells. And they could still compete, but I'd imagine it'd be more like a contest to see who's better at trolling the mundanes than a spell combat.

As for the fog issue, I'm going to argue that if you use a 1st level spell to try to directly duplicate the effects of a 2nd level spell, it should be pretty damn terrible.

[Jay R]

If you play the way that the DM likes, your character will be much more successful than if you play a way he doesn't like, for the same reason that it's easier to row downstream than upstream.

Talk to the DM. Tell him that you're interested in an illusionist, but you understand that some DMs dislike them or think that illusions are too powerful.

Have several very specific examples of how you would like to use illusions, and ask how he would rule on them.

Emphasize that you are trying to fit into his game, with a creative and reasonably powerful character that he wont feel the need to nerf for the good of the game.

There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Similarly, any roleplayer knows the rules. A good roleplayer knows the splatbooks. A great roleplayer knows the DM.

Find out how the DM likes illusions to work. That's how they will work.

[Segev]

I would generally count walking into a silent image of a fog bank as interacting with it, because the normal effects of a fog bank will only be partially present. Namely, there won't be the usual clammy feeling to the air. To combat this, when I designed a cloak that put up a silent image of a fog bank when it was worn with the grey-side out (it was reversible), I also added create water as a secondary spell to its design. It constantly creates just enough water to provide a "mist"-like coating to anything within the fog cloud.

Ideally, there's no real way to "interact" with the fog cloud at that point, though perhaps sufficient experimentation (blowing at it with wind, for instance) would permit the save.

[Duke of Urrel]

Find out how the DM likes illusions to work. That's how they will work.

I agree with everything you wrote. My opinions on how illusions in general and figments in particular work differ from many others that have been posted here.

For one thing, I allow a figment to produce a limited amount of light: the equivalent of one campfire for every 10-foot cube in the figment's area of effect.

For another, I require all figments to be completely hollow on the inside, so that the instant you step inside a figment, you automatically disbelieve it. This turns on its head what seems to be the prevailing opinion here about the effectiveness of illusory fog. I believe an illusory fog cloud looks so real from the outside that unless you take a move action to study it, I don't grant you a Will save to disbelieve it. However, the moment you step inside an illusory fog cloud, I allow you both automatically to disbelieve the illusion and to see everything that is hidden inside it.

Thirdly, I don't believe anybody can use Spellcraft to identify any spell without first at least guessing that it is in fact a spell. For example, you may use Spellcraft to identify something as a product of magic only if you take at least one move action to study it. This often coincides exactly with the action that I usually require to grant you a Will save to disbelieve an illusion, so that I will often grant you both a Will save and a Spellcraft check (and following the usual rules, you may sometimes take 10 on the Spellcraft check, whereas the Will save must be rolled). However, there are situations in which I will grant you only a Will save. For example, if an illusory creature threatens you, this counts as interaction and entitles you to a Will save, but I believe it does not entitle you to a Spellcraft check unless you suspect that the creature is the effect of a spell. In other words, if you saw the creature appear out of thin air, I would grant you a Spellcraft check, but if you merely saw the creature approach you as a real creature would, for example through a doorway, I would not.

Crazy, eh? So follow Jay R's advice and talk to your DM.

[Deophaun]

How does one interact with a fog cloud except by walking into it?
How is walking into it interaction? What are you doing to the fog and what is the fog doing to you? The answers are a) nothing and b) nothing. So, no interaction. That limits you to taking a standard action to study it.

You are not fighting 20 mooks and a caster at level 1 :)
Speak for yourself.

If your only use-case for silent image is fog, you might as well use obscuring mist.


Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)



Range: 20 ft.
Effect: Cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you, 20 ft. high

Clearly these two spells work in the same situations.

And that's not the only use case, but merely the most obvious devoid of context.


As for the fog issue, I'm going to argue that if you use a 1st level spell to try to directly duplicate the effects of a 2nd level spell, it should be pretty damn terrible.
The first level duplicate requires concentration. The second level original does not. How is that not terrible enough?

[Jay R]

How is walking into it interaction? What are you doing to the fog and what is the fog doing to you? The answers are a) nothing and b) nothing. So, no interaction.

Have you really never walked through a fog thick enough to obscure vision at ten feet? It is getting me cold, and it is getting me wet.

[Darth Ultron]

I would generally count walking into a silent image of a fog bank as interacting with it,

So, going with your interpertation that a figment type illusion can ''non game mechanically'' block a creatures sight:

Do you have illusions block light? Would the light of say a campfire go through and illusion?

Do you have illusions block temperature? Sound?

Would an illusion of a tent block the sunlight from hitting a creature?

Like say it was night time, could you cast your figment of fog and block the light from a campfire and plunge everything around into darkness.

And when your saying ''the illusion does not duplicate the official rules condition of blindness'', then what does it do exactly? Just some vague ''free form role play, er, you can't see ''?

[Segev]

Comparing silent image and obscuring mist
Clearly these two spells work in the same situations.
The illusion also can allow your allies to see through it if they are told it's an illusion (and can make a save at -4 DC). There is reason to suggest that you need to bolster the illusion, as well, so it doesn't feel wrong when people walk in (and thus grant them a save).


So, going with your interpertation that a figment type illusion can ''non game mechanically'' block a creatures sight:I'm going to reject your attempt to make my statement sound absurd, since I didn't say blocking sight isn't a mechanical effect and thus you're trying to construct a straw man. The illusion cannot Blind somebody. It can absolutely block lines of sight. That's what visible things do. To argue otherwise is to argue that figments don't actually do anything, since you can automatically see through them.


Do you have illusions block light?Personally? Yes. (I can posit ways it would work without doing so.)


Would the light of say a campfire go through and illusion?I would say "no," but again can posit ways it would work while allowing this.


Do you have illusions block temperature?Depends on the illusion. Silent image certainly would not. Nor would any illusion which didn't either create an illusory temperature or create an illusory tactile barrier. In practice, I'd probably just say "no," as any circumstance I can think of wouldn't meet a requirement I'd set to do so, except in the case of shadow-stuff where the illusion is actually at least partially real. Or, again, if the illusion explicitly included temperature.


Sound?Only if sound manipulation was part of the illusion. A muffling mute illusion stuffed into a real horn would mute the sound, if the illusion could do illusions of sound. Before you ask: it's not going to be replicating a silence spell for a number of reasons. Though I'm sure you can find ways to use this to get similar utility for specific purposes.


Would an illusion of a tent block the sunlight from hitting a creature?Again, I would rule "yes," though could see ways to have it not do so and still make sense.


Like say it was night time, could you cast your figment of fog and block the light from a campfire and plunge everything around into darkness. Fog wouldn't block the light sufficiently to do that. You'd wind up with an orange-glowing cloud. But let's not ignore the thrust of your question: I'll replace the fog with an illusion of a metal box covering the camp fire.

Yes, I would rule that that blocks the light and plunges the area into darkness. But, again, I can see ways to make the light level remain "campfire-lit" without stopping the illusory box from blocking line of sight to the fire.


And when your saying ''the illusion does not duplicate the official rules condition of blindness'', then what does it do exactly? Just some vague ''free form role play, er, you can't see ''?
Does obscuring mist or fog cloud duplicate the official rules condition of blindness? What about darkness?

The rules for blindness mean you cannot see regardless of prevailing environmental conditions. Not being blind doesn't mean you can automatically see; you have to have line of sight to that which you wish to see and you have to have sufficient light for whatever kind of sight you have.

Or do you allow somebody to see through walls because he's not blind? See through fog without difficulty because he's not blind?

[Jay R]

Do you have illusions block light?

Of course it blocks light, or it would never work. If you can't see through an illusory wall, then all the light bouncing off objects back there has been blocked.

If you can't see something, then the light bouncing off of it towards you has been interfered with somehow.

["Block" is the wrong word, of course. If you make your saving throw, then you can see through the illusory wall. It doesn't block the light; it makes the victim not see it. A visual illusion that doesn't block light cannot work.]


Would the light of say a campfire go through and illusion?

If there is an illusory wall, then you can't see the fire behind it. An illusion of a thick fog would make a fire some distance away look like a vague glow. Of course, if it's a silent image or minor image, then you can still feel the heat, and you have a saving throw.

In fact, if you can see the wall at all, then the light coming from behind it has been "blocked" - or rather, you aren't noticing it.


Do you have illusions block temperature? Sound?

Other sounds don't block sound, so no. But a major image can include thermal component. So an image of an ice block doesn't "block" the heat of a fire, but it does lower the perceived temperature. You are now heated by a fire and cooled by a large (illusory) block of ice. Specifically, in this case, a major illusion of fog would cool you off. But since you aren't getting wet, you have a saving throw.

If somebody cast a spell of a wall between the victim and a fire, I would need them to explicitly state that the temperature on the non-fire side should feel cooler than it is, or I assume that the illusionist forgot to include that component in the illusion.


Would an illusion of a tent block the sunlight from hitting a creature?

Yes, of course, or the creature would see the sun and not the tent. But again, if it's a mere minor image or silent image, it does not block the heat.

[Again, "block" is the wrong word, because as soon as a saving throw is made, they can see the sun. The vampire in the tent is still being burned by the sun, but might not understand why.]


Like say it was night time, could you cast your figment of fog and block the light from a campfire and plunge everything around into darkness.

Cold water droplets do not suddenly suspend in the air over a fire. Instant automatic saving throw. An illusion of fog between you and the fire, some distance from the fire, would look like a real fog does, including a vague glow in the direction of the fire.


And when your saying ''the illusion does not duplicate the official rules condition of blindness'', then what does it do exactly? Just some vague ''free form role play, er, you can't see ''?

You see thick fog, of course. You can see your hand in front of your face, but not objects 20 feet away. You can see some light from light sources further away, but no details.

Have you ever been in a really thick fog? You aren't blind, but what you can see is still quite limited.

[Knitifine]

3a) How could a DM reasonably nerf the use of Silent Image to create a concealing wall that works only against enemies (like because I told my allies I was going to cast an illusion so they auto-disbelieve)?I'm not sure disbelieving makes the illusion go away or appear invisible. Certainly if the player tried such a trick in one of my games, I would point this out.

[Segev]

I'm not sure disbelieving makes the illusion go away or appear invisible. Certainly if the player tried such a trick in one of my games, I would point this out.

It does make figments explicitly become transparent. Not invisible, but the disbelieving viewer can perceive the underlying reality.

[Zeruel]

Seems I've got plenty of feedback, I thank all of you very much!

The start of the adventure has been delayed due to DM's job inconveniences, but we'll probably be able to begin in a couple of weeks, and this will give me time to talk with him, as that seems the best way to procede (I just discovered he was fond of the SCM, and while he won't allow it to me it still means he should know how to play an illusionist for fun).

For what concernes the ruling of disbelief and spellcraft checks, I'm more for the "if you succede at disbelieving you get the spellcraft check to recognise which spell it is" idea. It looks more reasonable to me since when you get in front of an illusion you have no clue it actually is one, unless you have clear suggestions that one is, such as an unlikely environment for a particular illusion (an oak tree in a desert) or you have strong reasons to believe you'll be facing many (the party will pass through the Forest of Illusions).

And besides, the spellcraft check remains useful even after saving: a caster identifing a fake ceiling as a Silent Image instead as a Illusory Wall may suggest that enemies are probably not high-level enough to cast 4th level spells and that they are surely nearby manteining it, ready to ambush the party. That's what the check should serve for, to me: giving indepths of the powers and situations you'll be facing.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning, beside giving to a clever illusionist the edge against almost any unsuspecting foe?

[Jay R]

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning, beside giving to a clever illusionist the edge against almost any unsuspecting foe?

Nothing at all -- if the DM agrees.

In general, a clever X has an edge against almost any unsuspecting for, for pretty much any value of X.

[Deophaun]

["Block" is the wrong word, of course. If you make your saving throw, then you can see through the illusory wall. It doesn't block the light; it makes the victim not see it. A visual illusion that doesn't block light cannot work.]
Actually, there is probably some physics at the quantum level where the light can be both blocked and not blocked, and your Will save is just a reflection of the probability amplitude of the photons tunneling through to hit your eyes.

It's magic, though, so it can do what it wants and screw physics and logic.

[Knitifine]

It does make figments explicitly become transparent. Not invisible, but the disbelieving viewer can perceive the underlying reality.Welp, guess I'll have to add that to my home rules changes then; what an awful rule.

[Zeruel]

Actually, there is probably some physics at the quantum level where the light can be both blocked and not blocked, and your Will save is just a reflection of the probability amplitude of the photons tunneling through to hit your eyes.

It's magic, though, so it can do what it wants and screw physics and logic.

A good illusion provides also the illusion of shades, but it shouldn't actually block light since, except for Shadow ones, all illusion are completely fake while being "real" only by playing with your perceptions. So, to my interpretation: an illusory wall can hide reality to your senses (an abyss under a fake bridge or light striking the floor), but can't actually prevent reality from happening (an enemy falling off the fake bridge or light blinding you).

[Duke of Urrel]

For what concernes the ruling of disbelief and spellcraft checks, I'm more for the "if you succede at disbelieving you get the spellcraft check to recognise which spell it is" idea. It looks more reasonable to me since when you get in front of an illusion you have no clue it actually is one, unless you have clear suggestions that one is, such as an unlikely environment for a particular illusion (an oak tree in a desert) or you have strong reasons to believe you'll be facing many (the party will pass through the Forest of Illusions).

And besides, the spellcraft check remains useful even after saving: a caster identifing a fake ceiling as a Silent Image instead as a Illusory Wall may suggest that enemies are probably not high-level enough to cast 4th level spells and that they are surely nearby manteining it, ready to ambush the party. That's what the check should serve for, to me: giving indepths of the powers and situations you'll be facing.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning, beside giving to a clever illusionist the edge against almost any unsuspecting foe?

As you may guess, I like this reasoning very much. But of course, your DM may believe this nerfs Spellcraft too much.


Actually, there is probably some physics at the quantum level where the light can be both blocked and not blocked, and your Will save is just a reflection of the probability amplitude of the photons tunneling through to hit your eyes.

It's magic, though, so it can do what it wants and screw physics and logic.

Yes, indeed. The question is: Did Schrödinger's cat make a Will save to disbelieve the illusion or not? If we don't know, then we don't know whether the illusion blocks light or not. And of course, if we have several observers and some disbelieve and others don't, then the same illusion both blocks and does not block light.

[Jay R]

Yes, indeed. The question is: Did Schrödinger's cat make a Will save to disbelieve the illusion or not? If we don't know, then we don't know whether the illusion blocks light or not. And of course, if we have several observers and some disbelieve and others don't, then the same illusion both blocks and does not block light.

On this basis, I conclude that I have both won and lost this discussion, and will never know if I never return to this thread.

[Mathalor]

Are we talking about 5th edition, or 3.5? I've read in this thread rules and quotes from both, and it's making my brain hurt.

The rules for illusions in both editions differ, and are not interchangeable. Am I wrong?

I'm also getting confused about the spellcraft discussion. Do people roll spellcraft every time they see something magical or magically created, even if it's specifically intended to appear mundane?


I started reading this cause I was interested in building an illusionist in 5e.

After reading through this confusing thread, it sounds like in 5e, enemies have to spend an action on their turn disbelieving an illusion, even if it's obvious, and/or they can tell you just cast an illusion spell. Is this the case, IN FIFTH EDITION?


There's a lot of discussion on what happens to illusions when they are disbelieved. I don't have a book in front of me, but isn't it spelled out that they become visually transparent at that point? (Again, only asking about 5e)

[Jay R]

Are we talking about 5th edition, or 3.5? I've read in this thread rules and quotes from both, and it's making my brain hurt.

We're talking about 3.5e. This thread is in the D&D3e/3.5e/d20 Forum, and any other game is off-topic.


I started reading this cause I was interested in building an illusionist in 5e.

I recommend that you go to the D&D 5e/Next Forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?63-D-amp-D-5e-Next) then, and either read this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477658-Illusionist-Tricks), or start a new one.

[Zeruel]

As you may guess, I like this reasoning very much. But of course, your DM may believe this nerfs Spellcraft too much.

Well, I understand balancing classes, spells, feats, but even skills? I don't know, in that case we should totally remove Gather Info and/or Use Rope for being pretty much situational (and even useless in not so few campaigns) and ban Hide, Diplomacy and Bluff because they easily make you skip encounters.

Besides, Spellcraft is needed primary for identifing spells anyway, and still has various secondary and important uses, like for Identify, to wizards for learning extra spells IIRC, to erudites for the same reason and probably some others I don't recall right now.

This just to say that skills are the least important thing to be balanced, and any DM trying to do it (to me) is wasting both his and his players time, because skills are naturally unbalanced. Moreover, it's plain stupid that one single skill, beyond the fact that there are many classes using it (the most dangerous ones, besides), should be able to defeat the purpose of an entire school of magic on which, to different degrees, almost all spellcasting creatures relies. Just my 2 cents...

[Deophaun]

in that case we should totally remove Gather Info and/or Use Rope for being pretty much situational (and even useless in not so few campaigns)
Tangential: Pathfinder folded Gather Info into Diplomacy. Use Rope should have been part of Survival and Profession (sailor). (And really, the skill itself never made sense: like having a Use Wood or a Use Metal skill.) So... yes.

[Falcii]

One of my favorite uses of illusions is to display beasts or locations to NPCs. Think of it like YouTube on mute.

[Zeruel]

Tangential: Pathfinder folded Gather Info into Diplomacy. Use Rope should have been part of Survival and Profession (sailor). (And really, the skill itself never made sense: like having a Use Wood or a Use Metal skill.) So... yes.

In fact, I always had the impression that Pathfinder is a general errata corrige of the whole core of 3.5. Still, it lacks 3.5 variety of contents and expansions.

In fact, D&D 3.5 and PF always reminded me of Piccolo and Kami: a once powerful creature who splitted into two different existences that if ever reunited could give birth to a superior being, the Super Roleplay Game.

[Zanos]

FWIW, i think use rope was made thinking players were going to be doing a lot of tying up and climbing. It's still decent at low levels for grappling hooks.

Gather Information is a good skill, it's just that many DMS don't use it because getting information is roleplay rather than chucking some dice, in most instances.

[Darth Ultron]

To argue otherwise is to argue that figments don't actually do anything, since you can automatically see through them.


I'd say more: that figments don't actually do anything, other then make you think you see something that is not really there




Depends on the illusion.

I guess this shows the difference between

''A figments are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly''

And

''Illusions are all powerful game effects that can do anything...maybe..on a whim''.

It just comes down to how you want illusions in your game.

For example, I'd say that a figment illusion is simply not there (''not real'') for light or heat or sound. So if you put an silent image of a box over a campfire, you would not see the fire itself, but you'd still see the light from it, feel the heat from it and hear the wood burn.

[Deophaun]

I'd say more: that figments don't actually do anything, other then make you think you see something that is not really there
Which is why figments have the [mind-affecting] descrip... oh wait.

[Jay R]

For example, I'd say that a figment illusion is simply not there (''not real'') for light or heat or sound. So if you put an silent image of a box over a campfire, you would not see the fire itself, but you'd still see the light from it, feel the heat from it and hear the wood burn.

Unfortunately, this is self-inconsistent. It the light reaches you, you do see the fire itself. That's what "seeing" is.

An illusionary wall keeps the light bouncing off objects behind it from being perceived - by keeping that light from reaching you.

You're trying to make a distinction between light that bounces off the fire and light that the fire creates. There is no such distinction.

I agree that you will still hear the fire if the illusion is a silent image, and feel the warmth if it's a silent or minor image. You will also see the light patterns on nearby trees. But when you look at the illusory box, you see a box. A warm, crackling box (saving throw!), but a box nonetheless.

A visual illusion does affect light. Indeed, that's all it does.

[Segev]

I'd say more: that figments don't actually do anything, other then make you think you see something that is not really there Figments are not mind-affecting. They are magical constructs which exist exactly as much as they need to to create the sensory effects the illusion describes.





I guess this shows the difference between

''A figments are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly''

And

''Illusions are all powerful game effects that can do anything...maybe..on a whim''.

It just comes down to how you want illusions in your game.

For example, I'd say that a figment illusion is simply not there (''not real'') for light or heat or sound. So if you put an silent image of a box over a campfire, you would not see the fire itself, but you'd still see the light from it, feel the heat from it and hear the wood burn.It can reasonably be argued that the fire's effect on ambient light levels would remain, allowing for light to seemingly come from nowhere despite shadows showing from where it should come.

However , it is a tremendous leap from "a wall blocking light makes the space beyond dark" and "illusions can do anything no matter how powerful and nonsensical."

It is argumentative tactics like that which make people tend to dismiss your better points as disingenuous or foolish arrogance.


Unfortunately, this is self-inconsistent. It the light reaches you, you do see the fire itself. That's what "seeing" is.

An illusionary wall keeps the light bouncing off objects behind it from being perceived - by keeping that light from reaching you.

You're trying to make a distinction between light that bounces off the fire and light that the fire creates. There is no such distinction.

I agree that you will still hear the fire if the illusion is a silent image, and feel the warmth if it's a silent or minor image. You will also see the light patterns on nearby trees. But when you look at the illusory box, you see a box. A warm, crackling box (saving throw!), but a box nonetheless.

A visual illusion does affect light. Indeed, that's all it does.This is accurate. While I would argue that it is reasonable for an illusory box to darken the area and prevent the dancing firelight from being visible in the trees as that light instead dances off the interior of the box, it is also reasonable to argue that it illuminates the area despite concealing the fire itself.

None of his prevents an illusion of fog from blocking sight lines and reducing visibility.

[Jay R]

This is accurate. While I would argue that it is reasonable for an illusory box to darken the area and prevent the dancing firelight from being visible in the trees as that light instead dances off the interior of the box, it is also reasonable to argue that it illuminates the area despite concealing the fire itself.

Agreed. I could make the case either way. Given that people who made their saving throw do see the light bouncing off of the trees, I assume that it's really there. I'd want to know if the trees are within the area effect of the illusion, but I don't have a clear, unambiguous answer.


None of his prevents an illusion of fog from blocking sight lines and reducing visibility.

Of course. Blocking sight lines is one of the standard uses for a figment. But while fog will keep me from seeing twenty feet away, I can still see my hand, and my sword - or it doesn't really look like fog, and I get an automatic saving throw.

[Segev]

Agreed. I could make the case either way. Given that people who made their saving throw do see the light bouncing off of the trees, I assume that it's really there. I'd want to know if the trees are within the area effect of the illusion, but I don't have a clear, unambiguous answer.If it DOES cause darkness for those who fail their save, but not (as it wouldn't) for those who make their save, the only real explanation is "magic." It's not a mind-affecting illusion. The lack of transparency of it really does change the light level for some but not others. (This would be a good argument-from-consistency for having it NOT be able to change light levels.)


Of course. Blocking sight lines is one of the standard uses for a figment. But while fog will keep me from seeing twenty feet away, I can still see my hand, and my sword - or it doesn't really look like fog, and I get an automatic saving throw.Oh, sure. Though if you rip off fog cloud, you could justify not being able to see more than 5 feet away. Of course, you probably get a save unless the caster took great pains to ensure that it "feels" right, too.

[stanprollyright]

Oh, sure. Though if you rip off fog cloud, you could justify not being able to see more than 5 feet away. Of course, you probably get a save unless the caster took great pains to ensure that it "feels" right, too.

If you're close enough to "feel" the cloud and it is restricting your vision you should get a save regardless. If there's a cloud 40ft away from you and you're not looking directly at it, or have no reason to think it's fake or feel threatened by its appearance, you don't get a save. If archers are targeting you and you put up a Silent Image Fog Cloud and whisper to your buddies that it's fake so that the archers don't have LoS but you do, the archers will still get a save because they're looking right at you.

[Segev]

If you're close enough to "feel" the cloud and it is restricting your vision you should get a save regardless. If there's a cloud 40ft away from you and you're not looking directly at it, or have no reason to think it's fake or feel threatened by its appearance, you don't get a save. If archers are targeting you and you put up a Silent Image Fog Cloud and whisper to your buddies that it's fake so that the archers don't have LoS but you do, the archers will still get a save because they're looking right at you.

Why? The spells grant a save for interaction, not for merely looking at it. Interaction suggests that there's something you're doing wrt it that could tip you off. "I can't see my targets through that cloud of mist that darned wizard just conjured up" isn't exactly a tip-off to its illusory nature, given that fog cloud is a spell.

[stanprollyright]

Being inside it obviously counts as interacting with it. I don't see how that's disputable.

Looking at something and having LoS cut off arguably counts as "interacting" as well. If taking a move action to study counts as interacting, which really boils down to "looking directly at it for a second or two", then putting up an illusion in front of what you're already looking at means that you're now looking directly at the illusion.

EDIT: Again, if you're gonna use figments as combat spells they should require saving throws.

[Segev]

Being inside it obviously counts as interacting with it. I don't see how that's disputable.I don't see how it's "obvious."

Interaction requires that you be able to do something to which it should have a reaction. Or that it do something and have the environment/your perceptions react in a way that you should be able to detect.

"I'm standing in something I can see that I don't normally expect to react to me in any way and which I don't normally expect to sense any reaction to" doesn't count as "interaction." That counts as "coinciding."


Looking at something and having LoS cut off arguably counts as "interacting" as well.In that case, you'd allow a save for somebody who looks at a line of trees when one of the trees is an illusion behind which a goblin is hiding?


If taking a move action to study counts as interacting, which really boils down to "looking directly at it for a second or two", then putting up an illusion in front of what you're already looking at means that you're now looking directly at the illusion.No, sorry. Taking an action to study it actually means you're specifically looking for discrepancies. If you give it to them for free without making them take the action to study it, you're ... well, giving it to them for free. Why bother taking the action when the DM will just give it to you for free?

What you're looking for is in the rules you're trying to hold up to justify your nerfing of illusions subject to Disbelief save rules: if they're truly studying it well enough to earn a Disbelief save, they have to spend an action doing so.


EDIT: Again, if you're gonna use figments as combat spells they should require saving throws.They do. And there are ways to get them.

Are you suggesting that obscuring mist and fog cloud should offer saves, since you can use them in combat?

[Deophaun]

EDIT: Again, if you're gonna use figments as combat spells they should require saving throws.
If you're using them as combat spells then they already grant Spellcraft checks automatically. On top of that, there are means to earn saving throws, which includes one of the people who made a Spellcraft check using a free action to shout "It's an illusion."

The question, therefore, is not "should you automatically get a save," but "why do you hate figments?"

[stanprollyright]

If you're using them as combat spells then they already grant Spellcraft checks automatically. On top of that, there are means to earn saving throws, which includes one of the people who made a Spellcraft check using a free action to shout "It's an illusion."

The question, therefore, is not "should you automatically get a save," but "why do you hate figments?"

There are a lot of ways to avoid spellcraft checks altogether.

If you think requiring Will saves not to march over every encounter with clever use of a first level spell constitutes "hating figments" then your DM is garbage. I actually love figments. Silent Image is one of my favorite spells, but it's not the ultimate multitool. A first level Sorcerer with a good stealth check can't mimic every spell in the game without dice being rolled somewhere. I actually believe that Silent Image can, in fact, do all those things, and can, indeed, emit, reflect, and block light. But using it in combat like that is not what it was intended for. If you're using it to cause real-live sucky effects for your enemies, it should at least be treated like a save-or-suck.

Imagine if a DM did that to you: you get ambushed by an illusionist who covers up your only light source or puts you in an illusory cloud, so now you're blinded while the bad guys wail away at you, and you can't make a spellcraft because you can't see anything - I bet you'd be crying foul play and asking for Will saves.


I don't see how it's "obvious."

Interaction requires that you be able to do something to which it should have a reaction. Or that it do something and have the environment/your perceptions react in a way that you should be able to detect.

"I'm standing in something I can see that I don't normally expect to react to me in any way and which I don't normally expect to sense any reaction to" doesn't count as "interaction." That counts as "coinciding."

Think of it this way: walking through an illusory wall lets you automatically disbelieve it, right? Since you can't walk through physical objects? Fog is a physical thing. It moves and reacts to everything you do. Breathing is interacting with it. It's all around you, it's everything you can see. You don't need an action to study it because you can do nothing but study it. But since you can actually be inside and move through fog, I think it's kind of unfair to automatically disbelieve it in this particular circumstance, but you are definitely interacting with it.


In that case, you'd allow a save for somebody who looks at a line of trees when one of the trees is an illusion behind which a goblin is hiding?

No, unless they just saw a goblin there and then suddenly there was tree. That's the kind of thing figments are for. Mimicking other spells in combat is not (that's what shadow conjuration/evocation are for).


No, sorry. Taking an action to study it actually means you're specifically looking for discrepancies. If you give it to them for free without making them take the action to study it, you're ... well, giving it to them for free. Why bother taking the action when the DM will just give it to you for free?

What you're looking for is in the rules you're trying to hold up to justify your nerfing of illusions subject to Disbelief save rules: if they're truly studying it well enough to earn a Disbelief save, they have to spend an action doing so.

It's not a nerf and it's not free, it's a common-sense ruling on what constitutes "interacting with" an illusion, of which there is no stated definition.


Are you suggesting that obscuring mist and fog cloud should offer saves, since you can use them in combat?

No, stop straw-manning. Silent Image is not those spells. It's a fake version of those spells. If you want it to work like those spells (but only on the bad guys), someone has to fail to notice the truth. If they don't even get a chance to notice, not only does it effectively give you those spells for free, it's also a better version of those spells. That's an absurd abuse of the rules.

I don't think it's that unreasonable to make characters put resources into their DCs if they're going to use those kinds of tricks.

[Deophaun]

If you think requiring Will saves not to march over every encounter with clever use of a first level spell constitutes "hating figments" then your DM is garbage.
Straw man detected! Straw man detected!

A first level Sorcerer with a good stealth check can't mimic every spell in the game without dice being rolled somewhere.
Yes. It's called a Spellcraft check.

I actually believe that Silent Image can, in fact, do all those things, and can, indeed, emit, reflect, and block light. But using it in combat like that is not what it was intended for.
By all means: get the developer you know in here. Will be interesting.

If you're using it to cause real-live sucky effects for your enemies, it should at least be treated like a save-or-suck.
Except no one here is saying it can inflict a sucky effect. The most it can do is block LoS. There are plenty of spells that inflict effects even more sucky without saves. Heck, magic missile can inflict death with neither save nor attack roll, and it's level 1. Fog cloud, the spell we're talking about emulating, doesn't allow a save, and, even more broken, does not eat up your standard action every round to maintain.

Imagine if a DM did that to you: you get ambushed by an illusionist who covers up your only light source or puts you in an illusory cloud, so now you're blinded while the bad guys wail away at you, and you can't make a spellcraft because you can't see anything - I bet you'd be crying foul play and asking for Will saves.
Ever fight an aboleth?

If you have only one light source, that's your problem. But hey, I'll exchange being in the dark with removing a spellcaster from the field.

Think of it this way: walking through an illusory wall lets you automatically disbelieve it, right? Since you can't walk through physical objects? Fog is a physical thing.
Equivocation detected! Equivocation detected!

Edit:

You don't need an action to study it because you can do nothing but study it.
Wait, so you cannot take standard actions or move actions in an illusory cloud? Every action must be devoted to studying it? You can't even try to remove yourself until you have seen through it? I misjudged you. That's quite powerful.

[Darth Ultron]

Figments are not mind-affecting. They are magical constructs which exist exactly as much as they need to to create the sensory effects the illusion describes.

Oh, well, see here I just did what you did: I'm talking about ''affecting a persons mind'', but not the D&D definition of a Mind-affecting spell. Just using your own ''rules''....




None of his prevents an illusion of fog from blocking sight lines and reducing visibility.

So I'd ask what game effect ''an illusion of fog'' has? You said it would not make a person have the blinded condition right? So what does it do? Is it just ''you can't see through it'', but it has no game effects?


I don't see how it's "obvious."

This is the big problem that people like you make out of illusions: the break the game and don't follow the rules. It's a very basic rule that when magic effects a creature they get a save, for example see a couple hundred spells and magical effects in the game. It's not true of everything, but it's true for most.

And note you can't use Fog Cloud as your example as it's a conjuration and makes ''real'' fog and figment type illusions are not real.

Would you really want to play in a game with your homebrew illusion rules?

DM: ''Suddenly Darkness covers your character!" And whispers ''Hehe, no save and even though it's only a silent image of an illusion of darkness he can never ''interact'' with it so can never disbeleave..ahhaha"
Player: "What?"
DM: "Your character has died. Something you could not see killed him."

And if your going to do stuff like that, you might as well just go back to the 2E mindset of ''making an illusion of a bad wound and the target ''thinks'' themselves dead''.

[Hogsy]

I am way more confused about how illusions and figments work after reading through the entire thread than I was before. Thanks playground!
But seriously, I personally feel that although an Illusionist(You're supposed to be the outplayer!) shouldn't be using simple illusion magic against spellcasters, the spellcraft check to automatically disbelief shouldn't be free. Spellcraft needs no serious investment for you to have a +20 by 10th level, and a +20 should be enough in most cases. (13 ranks, let's say 2 intelligence and a +5 circmustance?). At least, you shouldn't be getting it automatically. If you ask for it because you're suspicious, chances are your character will be suspicious as well. Other than that, maybe a homebrew feat line to make your illusion spells harder to identify could work just fine. Illusions are very tricky to balance, as they can very easily be either OP or garbage. I'm very interested in running an Illusionist myself, but I won't do so until I can have a very clear idea of how illusions work in RAW, how I believe they should work and what I find to be the most balanced way for my party's campaigns for them to work.

Now, besides being unable to offer any kind of actual advice on illusions, I'll simply go ahead and tell you to discuss it with your DM. Most reasonable people, even those you get a bit paranoid when DMing, will see your approach as an act of honesty, and good intentions. Thus, they'll be way less likely trying to sabotage your character out of fear of things getting out of hand. At least those are my 2 cents.

[Deophaun]

Oh, well, see here I just did what you did: I'm talking about ''affecting a persons mind'', but not the D&D definition of a Mind-affecting spell. Just using your own ''rules''....
Figments work on things without minds, so it doesn't matter whether you're using the D&D definition of mind-affecting or not: you're still wrong.

[stanprollyright]

Straw man detected! Straw man detected!

Slippery slope, if anything.


Yes. It's called a Spellcraft check.

There are a lot of ways to avoid that, such as not being observed.


Except no one here is saying it can inflict a sucky effect. The most it can do is block LoS. There are plenty of spells that inflict effects even more sucky without saves. Heck, magic missile can inflict death with neither save nor attack roll, and it's level 1. Fog cloud, the spell we're talking about emulating, doesn't allow a save, and, even more broken, does not eat up your standard action every round to maintain.

How is "effective blindness" not sucky? How is "mimicking any spell I can imagine with no save" not abusive cheese?


Ever fight an aboleth?

If you have only one light source, that's your problem. But hey, I'll exchange being in the dark with removing a spellcaster from the field.

What? You lost me here.


Equivocation detected! Equivocation detected!

It's not equivocation at all. Fog has mass. It is a literal physical thing that you can literally physically touch and manipulate, the same as a wall.

[Darth Ultron]

Figments work on things without minds, so it doesn't matter whether you're using the D&D definition of mind-affecting or not: you're still wrong.

Well, thank you for the insult. Everyone look above at how I was insulted.

But ''mind effecting'' the game term is still different then ''mind effecting in normal speech'', as ''everything a creature sees and hears effects their mind, as that is how reality works''.

But do you have some sort of rule that says ''figments effect things without minds''? So like a mindless creature can walk across an illusionary bridge over a canyon?


But then D&D ''mindless'' is more a ''um, it's whatever you want it to be'', as you can command ''mindless'' skeletons to ''attack the elves'' and even with ''no mind'' the skeletons will still know what and elf is.....

[Deophaun]

There are a lot of ways to avoid that, such as not being observed.
If the illusion appears in the middle of battle, it doesn't matter if you were observed casting it or not. It's only when it is already in place and the observer has no reason to suspect magic that you avoid the Spellcraft check. In other words: outside of battle.

How is "effective blindness" not sucky?
Because you can get rid of it with a move action and the spellcaster needs to give up his standard action every round to maintain it. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that your allies will not be affected as well.

How is "mimicking any spell I can imagine with no save" not abusive cheese?
Oh, a silent image of a fireball that does no damage. Or a silent image of teleport which does... um... absolutely nothing.

Yeah, your "mimicking any spell I can imagine with no save" is vastly, vastly, vastly overblown. Unless you're using shadow magic, but those aren't figments.

What? You lost me here.

Duration: Concentration

It's not equivocation at all. Fog has mass. It is a literal physical thing that you can literally physically touch and manipulate, the same as a wall.
No. A wall is a solid object. You automatically disbelieve because the thing that was supposed to be a solid object was definitely not solid. You equivocated when you used physical as a synonym for solid, and then tried to apply that to fog, which is physical in a sense that has nothing to do with its solidity.

But hey, try this on:
http://i.imgur.com/DKe5GBI.png
Now, tell me: What does black feel like? How does black move around you? Do you remember what it was like to breathe black? List the physical properties of black: animal, mineral, vegetable? Mass? Temperature? Charge? Spin?

Fog cloud is merely the reference.

[Deophaun]

Well, thank you for the insult. Everyone look above at how I was insulted.
The only insult there is one that you have invented for yourself. The question is if I should report you on your own behalf?

But ''mind effecting'' the game term is still different then ''mind effecting in normal speech'', as ''everything a creature sees and hears effects their mind, as that is how reality works''.
And what does everything a camera sees affect? Or everything a microphone pics up?

But do you have some sort of rule that says ''figments effect things without minds''? So like a mindless creature can walk across an illusionary bridge over a canyon?That's quite the obtuse argument.

But then D&D ''mindless'' is more a ''um, it's whatever you want it to be'', as you can command ''mindless'' skeletons to ''attack the elves'' and even with ''no mind'' the skeletons will still know what and elf is.....
Yes, it's whatever you want it to be because it encapsulates everything that acts like a creature and yet has no comprehension of what it does--it's a catch-all for anything that doesn't have an Intelligence score. A Roomba in D&D would be mindless, which means it would detect the illusory cliff you put in front of it.

[TheIronGolem]

But do you have some sort of rule that says ''figments effect things without minds''?

Phantasms and Patterns are designated as mind-affecting, Figments and Glamers are not. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm)


So like a mindless creature can walk across an illusionary bridge over a canyon?

That is not implied by anything that anyone has said.

[Starbuck_II]

Rules of the game says while a real wall can't be made (You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall): you can create a bricked up hallway.

But unlike he wall: you can create a door to block and hide behind (even included a big lock).

And on mindless:
" A mindless creature, however, is much less likely to find something just plainly unbelievable (and thus gain a saving throw to disbelieve with no study or interaction) than a creature with an Intelligence score would be. A mindless creature lacks an internal catalog of memories and expectations that can generate the level of incredulity required to evoke instant disbelief."
Weirdly, objects auto-succeed vs Shadow spells.

[Segev]

There are a lot of ways to avoid spellcraft checks altogether. If the player takes a moment to use make a check, he gets to make a check. He spent an action to do it, but hey, if it identifies silent image for him, that's half-way to a win (and the Disbelief save - probably with the +4 for recognizing the spell that makes the illusion - will be the rest of the way, for him at least).


If you think requiring Will saves not to march over every encounter with clever use of a first level spell constitutes "hating figments" then your DM is garbage.So, um, where did anybody suggest you could "march over every encounter" with silent image? You claim it's at best a slippery slope fallacy, not a straw man, so clearly you must have something other than the idea that people suggested a tactic that might be useful in combat.


I actually love figments. Silent Image is one of my favorite spells, but it's not the ultimate multitool.Using the same kind of straw man/slippery slope you've been using, I can claim you never let silent image do anything because you allow a will save any time it shows up, for free.


A first level Sorcerer with a good stealth check can't mimic every spell in the game without dice being rolled somewhere.Others have refuted this with a list of spells - abbreviated though it is - which silent image can't even begin to mimic. That it can mimic purely visual effects should not be in contention.


I actually believe that Silent Image can, in fact, do all those things, and can, indeed, emit, reflect, and block light. But using it in combat like that is not what it was intended for. If you're using it to cause real-live sucky effects for your enemies, it should at least be treated like a save-or-suck.It was intended to create illusions. One thing illusions can do is provide concealment. That is a combat effect.

And it's hardly a save-or-suck. Even at the most generous interpretation of mimicking fog cloud, it doesn't prevent meleeists from attacking without penalty once they're adjacent to their targets.


Imagine if a DM did that to you: you get ambushed by an illusionist who covers up your only light source or puts you in an illusory cloud, so now you're blinded while the bad guys wail away at you, and you can't make a spellcraft because you can't see anything - I bet you'd be crying foul play and asking for Will saves.Only if I suspected it was an illusion, in which case I'd accept that I have to take an action to deliberately examine the effect for signs of its illusory nature (thus granting me the Disbelief save).



Think of it this way: walking through an illusory wall lets you automatically disbelieve it, right? Since you can't walk through physical objects? Fog is a physical thing. It moves and reacts to everything you do. Breathing is interacting with it. It's all around you, it's everything you can see. You don't need an action to study it because you can do nothing but study it. But since you can actually be inside and move through fog, I think it's kind of unfair to automatically disbelieve it in this particular circumstance, but you are definitely interacting with it.You... don't understand what "study" means, do you. You're not "studying" the air you're breathing right now. Not without stopping what else you're doing and contemplating it, trying to see if it's behaving differently than you would expect.

You get an auto-save after walking through an illusory wall because walls don't let you walk through them, and it's thus obvious that "something" is up.

I can see reason to allow the interaction save if the air is notably too dry for fog, as you might actually notice that. Otherwise, I'm going to require at least spending an action really testing your senses against it, whether deliberately trying to waft about eddies, or smelling carefully for the faint scent of humidity, or listening to see if sound is muffled the way you expect. Because while those are potential clues, none of them are enough, when you're focused on something else, to automatically make you question the evidence of your eyes.



No, unless they just saw a goblin there and then suddenly there was tree.Why not? You'd allow somebody who saw a fog bank conjured by a wizard make a Disbelief save automatically. Do you automatically suspect every bit of magic you see to be illusions? Does every being in your world do so?


Mimicking other spells in combat is not (that's what shadow conjuration/evocation are for).No, shadow conjuration and shadow evocation are for making quasi-real illusions. Nothing about "figment" says "you can't use this in combat."


It's not a nerf and it's not free, it's a common-sense ruling on what constitutes "interacting with" an illusion, of which there is no stated definition.Your "common-sense ruling" is making the spell less effective and giving a skill roll as a free action that, by the rules, takes an action to make. That is both nerfing the spell and giving an a skill roll for free. Whether you think it common-sense or not. (I disagree; it isn't common sense. But the quoted claim here is wrong even if it is.)


No, stop straw-manning.I'm not.

Silent Image is not those spells. It's a fake version of those spells.Never said otherwise.

If you want it to work like those spells (but only on the bad guys), someone has to fail to notice the truth.Yep. If they suspect, they can take an action to study it. If they notice, they can save (and taking the action to study it works for granting the save without needing anything else). And it works on your allies just as well...unless you convey to them "it's an illusion, guys," which, by the rules for Disbelief saves, grants them an immediate save at +4. Consider that you have to plan how to let them know carefully to avoid tipping off the foe, too.


If they don't even get a chance to notice, not only does it effectively give you those spells for free, it's also a better version of those spells. That's an absurd abuse of the rules.They're NOT better than those spells. Those spells don't require concentration, and have larger AoEs. And the "chance to notice" comes in when they can take an action to study it. Now, I admit, most creatures probably won't. I mean, if you're playing as a PC, and you see a goblin shaman conjure up a cloud of fog, are you going to immediately suspect "illusion?"

But perhaps, if the goblins are all remarkably accurate in that fog compared to you, you might.

Illusions are about fooling people. If you can trick them into not even suspecting, they're very powerful. But that takes more than just the illusion, if you want to maintain its efficacy.


I don't think it's that unreasonable to make characters put resources into their DCs if they're going to use those kinds of tricks.I...don't know to what resources you refer. Actions? It's unreasonable to make people take an action to use their abilities?


Oh, well, see here I just did what you did: I'm talking about ''affecting a persons mind'', but not the D&D definition of a Mind-affecting spell. Just using your own ''rules''....Nonsense. You're saying, "I am making it affect minds but not making it be mind-affecting." I'm saying, "It blocks line-of-sight; it doesn't cause the Blind condition." To make those parallel, you must be able to demonstrate that darkness and that walls and dense foliage create the "blind" condition. Since that is not the case, your argument is without merit, and your efforts to be smug about it are petty.


So I'd ask what game effect ''an illusion of fog'' has? You said it would not make a person have the blinded condition right? So what does it do? Is it just ''you can't see through it'', but it has no game effects?What does "an illusion of a wall" do? Can you hide behind it? Of course you can. An illusion of fog behaves just like fog, in terms of visibility conditions. Does casting fog cloud cause the blinded condition? No. You're smarter than this. Stop playing dumb to try to win an internet argument.


This is the big problem that people like you make out of illusions: the break the game and don't follow the rules.I've done neither.


It's a very basic rule that when magic effects a creature they get a save, for example see a couple hundred spells and magical effects in the game. It's not true of everything, but it's true for most.So... magic missile grants a save, now? I missed that errata.


And note you can't use Fog Cloud as your example as it's a conjuration and makes ''real'' fog and figment type illusions are not real.Irrelevant. If I want a stone wall to hide behind, I don't have to cast wall of stone. I can also use silent image to make an illusory stone wall.


Would you really want to play in a game with your homebrew illusion rules?The premise of your question is flawed: these are not homebrew. But yes, I'd happily play under these rules. (Not the homebrew you're trying to straw man in, where I don't doubt you'd claim I'd make a silent image of a fireball do caster-level d6 fire damage. Which I wouldn't, because the spell can't do that by the RAW.)


DM: ''Suddenly Darkness covers your character!" And whispers ''Hehe, no save and even though it's only a silent image of an illusion of darkness he can never ''interact'' with it so can never disbeleave..ahhaha"
Player: "What?"
DM: "Your character has died. Something you could not see killed him."Oh, please. A darkness spell could do this just as well as a silent image. "Darth Ultron can exaggerate the lethality of being unable to see your attacker and be smug about it" isn't an argument.


And if your going to do stuff like that, you might as well just go back to the 2E mindset of ''making an illusion of a bad wound and the target ''thinks'' themselves dead''....straw man and slippery slope AND not actually factually accurate about 2e. Wow; that's impressive, Darth Ultron.

There are illusion spells that do that, of course, but they do it because the spells say they do.


Well, thank you for the insult. Everyone look above at how I was insulted. You consider being told "you're wrong" an insult? Really? That explains a lot, actually.


But ''mind effecting'' the game term is still different then ''mind effecting in normal speech'', as ''everything a creature sees and hears effects their mind, as that is how reality works''.No, it really isn't. And your failure to understand the difference is just that: your failure. Deliberate, I think, because you're so desperate to try to construct a straw man that you can beat in this internet argument that you're willfully making an idiotic and un-analogous claim.


But do you have some sort of rule that says ''figments effect things without minds''? So like a mindless creature can walk across an illusionary bridge over a canyon?That logic doesn't follow. If the figment can't support a creature that believes in it, it can't support a mindless creature, either.


But then D&D ''mindless'' is more a ''um, it's whatever you want it to be'', as you can command ''mindless'' skeletons to ''attack the elves'' and even with ''no mind'' the skeletons will still know what and elf is.....This is a mildly fair accusation, though "mindless" generally means "unable to reason or remember beyond straight-forward programming." Mindless undead and constructs have something that can magically comprehend their masters' orders because it's magic. And yes, it's a DM's call what the limits of that understanding are. Though any limit that prevents basic instructions from being followed is a DM being a jerk, since we have in-rule examples of basic instructions that work. e.g. "attack the elves."

[Deophaun]

If the player takes a moment to use make a check, he gets to make a check. He spent an action to do it, but hey, if it identifies silent image for him, that's half-way to a win (and the Disbelief save - probably with the +4 for recognizing the spell that makes the illusion - will be the rest of the way, for him at least).
Spellcraft does not require an action. Furthermore, I'm 100% certain recognizing something is the product of silent image means that you've recognized it as illusory. As failing a saving throw means "[failing] to notice something is amiss," and you've already noticed that via the Spellcraft check, no save is needed. You have proof that it's an illusion, you disbelieve with no action taken.

[Segev]

Spellcraft does not require an action. Furthermore, I'm 100% certain recognizing something is the product of silent image means that you've recognized it as illusory. As failing a saving throw means "[failing] to notice something is amiss," and you've already noticed that via the Spellcraft check, no save is needed. You have proof that it's an illusion, you disbelieve with no action taken.

Cool, so Spellcraft can let you recognize that silent image was just cast. Technically, though, that would only equate to "somebody [you] telling you it's an illusion." You still have to convince yourself to look past what your eyes are telling you is there. Fortunately, you get a +4 to the save. And get to make it right away.

So yeah, if you want a Disbelief save for no action, succeed on that spellcraft check (which also requires no action).

Now, if you're trying to ID a silent image by virtue solely of seeing the image itself... you need some hint that you're seeing a spell effect. I'd hesitate to allow a wizard walking through the woods to automatically get to identify that that tree there is a silent image by making a reflexive spellcraft check just because he passed his gaze over it.

[TheIronGolem]

I'd hesitate to allow a wizard walking through the woods to automatically get to identify that that tree there is a silent image by making a reflexive spellcraft check just because he passed his gaze over it.

You mean...you can't unsee the trees for the forest?

[Deophaun]

Cool, so Spellcraft can let you recognize that silent image was just cast. Technically, though, that would only equate to "somebody [you] telling you it's an illusion."
If that's what it equates to:

If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
So you have successfully disbelieved the illusion, allowing you to communicate that to yourself, so that you can get a +4 bonus on a save to disbelieve an illusion you already disbelieved.

And again, it's not "it was just cast." You recognize that the cloud of fog is actually a silent image with a DC20+spell level check. It's not "Mr Wizard cast an illusion," it's "the thing I'm looking at is an illusion."

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.
Please explain how identifying an object as the product of silent image is neither a)recognizing it as illusory or b)noticing something is amiss. Because that's all that making your saving throw is.

Now, if you're trying to ID a silent image by virtue solely of seeing the image itself... you need some hint that you're seeing a spell effect.
Oh, you mean like exactly how I've been stating throughout the entire thread?

Like that?

How I said it?

Two dozen times?

[Segev]

So, the rules you quoted specify that you do not recognize the illusion as an illusion until you make a successful disbelief roll...and that somehow translates to being able to substitute Spellcraft for it?

Honestly, all you've done with your quotes is convince me that I'm wrong: you don't get a +4 bonus to the Disbelief save, nor get to make it automatically, just because you succeeded on a Spellcraft check. All you get is the freedom to make a Spellcraft check to identify that there is a silent image...but despite knowing there is one, you still have to take the action to "study it carefully" before you can make the throw.

So it sounds like, by the rules you're quoting, the actual progression would be this:

1) Character comes across an illusory wall.
2) Character gets a Spellcraft check. Assume he successfully identifies that there's a silent image in the area.
3) Character now studies the area, and is entitled to a Disbelief save.

If he fails the save, he can't find the illusion, even though he knows there must be one there somewhere. If he makes it, he sees through it.

[Deophaun]

So, the rules you quoted specify that you do not recognize the illusion as an illusion until you make a successful disbelief roll

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.
Seriously, how the heck do you get "must roll to disbelieve" from "needs no saving throw?"

[Segev]

Seriously, how the heck do you get "must roll to disbelieve" from "needs no saving throw?"

Hm. There seems to be some level of "there's no point at which you must save" in here, now. Interaction provides proof that it isn't real. By your ruling on Spellcraft, it identifies exactly what is the illusion and proves it isn't real. Is there any point where you actually make a save without the +4 bonus due to being told it isn't real?

[Zanos]

Hm. There seems to be some level of "there's no point at which you must save" in here, now. Interaction provides proof that it isn't real. By your ruling on Spellcraft, it identifies exactly what is the illusion and proves it isn't real. Is there any point where you actually make a save without the +4 bonus due to being told it isn't real?
This is actually a weird case even outside of this topic. If you interact with an illusory wall, as in, touching it, you're going to put your hand through it and know it isn't real, skipping the save entirely. I guess if you touched an illusion of a green brick wall over a red brick wall, you would get a save without having proof?

[Deophaun]

Hm. There seems to be some level of "there's no point at which you must save" in here, now. Interaction provides proof that it isn't real. By your ruling on Spellcraft, it identifies exactly what is the illusion and proves it isn't real. Is there any point where you actually make a save without the +4 bonus due to being told it isn't real?
Spend a move action studying it. In one of the uses I posted using it as a smoke screen to block the vision of archers. In that game, the archers could either move around to get an unblocked vantage point (a lot of movement, two or three rounds worth) or they could have sat where they were and used their move action to observe the smoke, getting a Will save for each move action so spent.

[Duke of Urrel]

Hm. There seems to be some level of "there's no point at which you must save" in here, now. Interaction provides proof that it isn't real. By your ruling on Spellcraft, it identifies exactly what is the illusion and proves it isn't real. Is there any point where you actually make a save without the +4 bonus due to being told it isn't real?


This is actually a weird case even outside of this topic. If you interact with an illusory wall, as in, touching it, you're going to put your hand through it and know it isn't real, skipping the save entirely. I guess if you touched an illusion of a green brick wall over a red brick wall, you would get a save without having proof?

When you encounter an illusory creature, I believe there are many ways to interact without automatically demonstrating that the creature is illusory.

For example, if an illusory guard blocks your way and forbids you to pass through a gate or over a bridge, that's interaction, but there is no proof that the guard is illusory. I believe you don't even need to take an action to make a Will save in this case, because the illusion interacts with you.

If you try to attack the guard and miss, that's also interaction without proof, so that you get a Will save in this case, too.

You get proof that the guard is illusory only if you make a mêlée attack that hits – that is, a mêlée attack that passes right through the guard, because he is insubstantial. In this case, you automatically disbelieve without having to make a Will save.

Postscript: When you're a DM, you have to make judgement calls to determine when NPCs will take move actions to study things. I think it's a safe bet that when new objects have mysteriously appeared in a space that the NPCs are familiar with, they will be curious enough to take a move action to study them.

[stanprollyright]

When you encounter an illusory creature, I believe there are many ways to interact without automatically demonstrating that the creature is illusory.

For example, if an illusory guard blocks your way and forbids you to pass through a gate or over a bridge, that's interaction, but there is no proof that the guard is illusory. I believe you don't even need to take an action to make a Will save in this case, because the illusion interacts with you.

If you try to attack the guard and miss, that's also interaction without proof, so that you get a Will save in this case, too.

You get proof that the guard is illusory only if you make a mêlée attack that hits – that is, a mêlée attack that passes right through the guard, because he is insubstantial. In this case, you automatically disbelieve without having to make a Will save.

Postscript: When you're a DM, you have to make judgement calls to determine when NPCs will take move actions to study things. I think it's a safe bet that when new objects have mysteriously appeared in a space that the NPCs are familiar with, they will be curious enough to take a move action to study them.

All of this. "Interaction" is any interaction, not just the specific "study the illusion" action that takes a move-equivalent action. The move action is an option for if you otherwise wouldn't have interacted with it. "Hey, this wall is different. Let's take a move action to see if it's real."

Some disconnect on spellcraft: The spellcraft check is not an action, but I don't think it should be treated like an automatic reaction whenever a spell effect is perceivable. A Will save IS an automatic reaction, and should not take a move action in every circumstance. It seems like the way some of you treat it is that spellcraft checks basically replace your will saves vs illusions, and if you don't have spellcraft the only way to get a save is by spending a move action or when your wizard buddy yells, "It's an illusion, dummy!". This interpretation bugs me because it makes illusions super useful against non-casters and nigh-useless against casters. If the wizard fails his save on round 1, he doesn't get to make a spellcraft check unless he has reason to be suspicious.

[Deophaun]

All of this. "Interaction" is any interaction
But it must be interaction, not inter-existence.

Some disconnect on spellcraft: The spellcraft check is not an action, but I don't think it should be treated like an automatic reaction whenever a spell effect is perceivable.
No one has stated this. If someone wants a Spellcraft check, they have to ask for it. There is nothing in the PHB, DMG, or RC that says Spellcraft checks just happen. If you don't know that the wall in front of you is the product of a spell effect, the DM isn't going to just roll a Spellcraft check for you.

Look, your straw man is on fire. No, that is not an illusion. It's real fire and trying to wrestle with it will just get you burned.

The true disconnect is that you're afraid of figments somehow stomping all over combat, and yet you insist that the very thing that makes them a bad fit for combat does not exist. You've created your own problem.

[Zanos]

No one has stated this. If someone wants a Spellcraft check, they have to ask for it. There is nothing in the PHB, DMG, or RC that says Spellcraft checks just happen. If you don't know that the wall in front of you is the product of a spell effect, the DM isn't going to just roll a Spellcraft check for you.
I spellcraft the walls, the ceiling, the floor, the chairs, the tables, the cutlery...the air... (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC54.GIF)

It's specifically no action, not even a free action. Nothing prevents everyone in the party from rolling spellcraft against every single object they see, if you want to stall the game into oblivion.

[bookkeeping guy]

1) How can I have fun with my illusions without seeming overpowered? Should I even bother with this particular issue?

2) What possible uses of illusions are often debated about being legal or not?

3) Which of them are most likely to be arbitrarily banned because they are considered OP while still being legal?

3a) How could a DM reasonably nerf the use of Silent Image to create a concealing wall that works only against enemies (like because I told my allies I was going to cast an illusion so they auto-disbelieve)?

3b) Would such nerf be arbitrary and unreasonable?

The best way is for the illusionist to actually give his party proof that the wall is an illusion, such as having the illusion of a solid (stone, wood, not fog) wall appear right on top of them so they're inside it. Now they don't have to make a saving throw: disbelief is automatic because passing through a solid object is explicitly listed as proof. There are no reasonable means to nerf this.

Ok the problem with the above comment is if his own team fails a saving throw or fails a wisdom or intelligence check (you could let them do all 3 really…) is that they would believe their comerade had ‘buried’ their feet in cement Jimmy Hoffa style. They could panic and if low trust…it could get violent on them believing they were being betrayed. And the concept of them believing they were being trapped as a sacrificial lamb is a legitimate possible result.

I don’t see any reason to nerf it. This is being creative and good use of magic. People should be rewarded for creativity and not punished for it. In fact OP means them not being creative and only thinking about kill power. Creativity is about utility and coolness.

The big trick with illusions is to not go crazy. The vast majority of DM's don't mind some clever and intresting uses of illusions, but they all most all really hate the annoying player that thinks illusions re some sort of ''I win easy button''.

I liked this comment above. I see no reason the illusions couldn’t act as substitute tanking in a way or substitute for being the party spearhead to absorb enemy attention for awhile. But there should be the idea that some of the enemies will see through it and that it isn’t like a nuke button that instantly kills everything. The acting as a spearhead and crowd control is perfectly reasonable.

In combat illusions aren't super great. Enemies with spellcraft will likely identify the illusion as you are casting that, either giving them proof it's fake or automatically prompting a will save, depending on the DM.

You know there’s no reason that part of the illusion could be in front of the caster’s hands and mouth to misdirect the spellcraft check that’s trying to identiy what he’s casting. Also I see no reason why some of the illusionist’s practiced spells can’t be really good. It’s likely that stuff cast on the fly with no practice may be as you say, but if the illusionist has some very practiced long term illusions (which should be identified ahead of time as what they are and how many are reasonable…), these long term very good practiced illusions could be fantastic and even gain a bonus while maybe some of the ones he’s never done before might look shabby. Also in determining how many of the long term (long term meaning habitually casted from one day to another) illusions are qualified as practiced and super good you could use the intelligence sub stat of how many languages the illusionist is qualified to know. Its an intelligence trait and so the trait of how many illusions an illusionist could habitually be able to “super cast” with top priority on believability. I also agree with the guy that said spellcraft checks aren’t proof.

Sadly true, but my character is HIGHLY flavoured, and he has very few means to deliver actual damage until he gets Shadow Conj and the likes, so I have to stick to the idea that I'll be no mailman despite being a sorcerer...

In regards to this comment I would point out that I’ve also asked this question in the forum but in a different way than you did. I used different questions. I liked your questions though because I still felt using illusions and an illusionist is difficult to work out. Several of the people replied that you could use an illusion to ‘simulate’ summon monsters that would fight for you doing mental damage to enemies and that the formula for this would be using your mage’s HP, Thaco, ac, spell level to determine the strength of the ‘simulated’ illusion fodder troops that are more than anything buying the enemy’s attention. So per spell the illusion would divide his HP among however many illusionary allies he had (which would also keep the illusion being not too godly since mages don’t have good hp.), and they would use a thaco or whatever similar to the mage, with normal looking weapons that would look similar to normal stuff like clubs, swords, etc. and that these illusionary figures would have to be planned in advance (probably as one of your planned super good illusions). So there would be a limit to how many of these simulated minions you could do…if your HP was 20, then making 2 or 3 minions in the simulated illusion would give maybe one of them 8 hp, and the others have 6 each. It also controlled it so that you wouldn’t make too many since if they were low health they would end up dying quickly.

The other thing that would factor into this is how many illusions you could concentrate on at once. Particularly with the simulated minions. They would also be limited in how far they could go from the caster too because of the constraints of the spell area, or distance from each other. The real question is how many illusions can the illusionist have at once that he’s concentrating on? Because if you used one of your illusions as a simulated monster summoning and you only had 3 of them made of paper, then the natural way to want to compensate is creating more of them right? So how many spells is reasonable for the limit for what your illusionist can hold at once?

They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures

To the guy that said this I would point out that he’s right and wrong at the same time. There are dozens of illusionist players and DMs that have the damage be ‘mental damage’ similar to how psionicists do stuff. It’s true that the illusions probably wouldn’t be able to function like machines or wagons or facilitate travel etc. but there should be a way to use them to do stuff.

One of my beefs is about the advanced level programmed illusion/permanent illusion spells. It’s an advanced level spell. Too many people have too many constraints on it when it’s an advanced level spell. If it’s really an advanced level spell there shouldn’t be any reason why the spell caster couldn’t use it to do more than the spells that are many tiers lower than it. Why would a 6th tier programmed illusion spell not be able to do more than just a lousy lowest level illusion? That doesn’t make sense.

There needs to be more open clarification on how utility will be better on the 6th tier programmed illusion/permanent illusion compared to just tier 2 phantasmal force, and the improved phantasmal force.

The permanent illusion version too why would it act like just a weak little phantasmal force that’s tier 2? Let people be creative with it.

The guy that said check if the DM is on board with illusions or intends to nerf the heck out of them made a very good point too. Some people just they can’t have someone else having a better toy than they have…its unfortunate but they get greedy or stupid and something clicks in their head that there’s no way they will let the other kid have a better transformer oops I mean PC than will have.

Can someone also clarify?
1) Do shadow conjuration spells have to be concentrated on?
2) How many illusions at once can the illusionist have going at once and keep up with concentration?

The arguing of blocking or unblocking light is trying to around and ignore the fact that illusionists and illusionists are a real weapon.

[ATalsen]

But it must be interaction, not inter-existence.

Illusions of Fog or "blackness" have been put forth as valid illusions for Silent Image, and suggested attempts to interact with them have been shot down.

So my question is: How DO you interact with such illusions?


I'm looking for any other action you can take that will qualify as 'interaction' to reveal their illusionary nature and gain a save *other than* taking the action to study them (or being told they are illusions).

Since interaction is one way to reveal their nature, I make the leap that illusions inherently MUST be able to BE interacted with, so I'm curious to see what people think qualifies in this situation. My own opinion is that its enough to move into the illusion's square (or have the illusion cast or move into your square) to count as interaction, but for those who feel that is not enough, I'm asking 'what is?'

[Deophaun]

Ok the problem with the above comment is if his own team fails a saving throw or fails a wisdom or intelligence check (you could let them do all 3 really…)
That's it. I'm done with this thread. You can only quote the same passages so many times. If people don't want to bother to either read the thread or even check the SRD before posting, that's their problem, not mine.

So my question is: How DO you interact with such illusions?
You don't. That's the entire point of picking that form.

Since interaction is one way to reveal their nature, I make the leap that illusions inherently MUST be able to BE interacted with
You do not have a skill modifier high enough to successfully make that Jump check.

[Segev]

If you have no way to interact with that tree on top of the cliff, then you don't get to say "but I MUST have a way to do it!" Sorry, you don't, so no, you can't test it to see if it's an illusion. If you're stopping to say, "I study it because I think it's suspicious," then you get your Disbelief save, because you studied it.


You also can get that Disbelief save by actually spending the action to study the illusory cloud of fog. But you have to stop and study it.

In theory, you could argue that there's a hint that it's not real if it doesn't "feel" right when you go into it, which would grant a Disbelief save, as well. This is why I like to augment it, when making a magic item, with create water so that a fine mist of water is created on every surface therein, to the precise quantities one might expect from interacting with a fog cloud. Thus denying that "interaction" justification. Note: stopping to study it or being told it's an illusion would still grant the Disbelief save.

[ATalsen]

If you have no way to interact with that tree on top of the cliff, then you don't get to say "but I MUST have a way to do it!" Sorry, you don't, so no, you can't test it to see if it's an illusion.

Just to clarify, I'm asking only about illusions that *inherently by the nature of their subject* are ‘ephemeral’ or of similar design. Solid objects are easy enough to understand.

In your example of the tree, IF a character were to get to the tree and swing their sword thru it or at it, then we have interaction. So for the sake of my question, assume you can get to and occupy the space in which the illusion was created. At that point, what type of interaction do you think can reveal the illusion?

We already have an opinion from Deophaun above that illusions can be made such that you are not allowed to interact with them.

Even though interaction is one of the listed ways to get a save, do people think that illusions can be crafted that *inherently by the nature of their subject* simply cannot be interacted with to gain such save, and that studying it is thus *required*?

[Telok]

Even though interaction is one of the listed ways to get a save, do people think that illusions can be crafted that *inherently by the nature of their subject* simply cannot be interacted with to gain such save, and that studying it is thus *required*?

Well, at low levels a chimera is pretty dangerous. So a well timed/hidden casting that results in a chimera flying overhead and then starting to turn back towards you could fit that description against people who can't fly and don't have missile weapons.

An invisible wizard casting an illusion of himself walking around a corner, spotting someone, and casting Teleport (the illusion casts the teleport and you dismiss the spell) and disappearing.

[Zeruel]

Ok, for those who had not read the previous posts (such unexpected support!) and still debate on what's considered "interaction", I think I got the ultimate evidence:

The Shadowcrafter PrC has a class feature, called "No Delusions", that reads:

At 9th level, a shadowcrafter has such complete mastery of illusion spells that he no longer needs to interact with them to merit a saving throw. If he can see or otherwise witness the illusory effect, he can attempt a save.

Since it would be redundant (and kinda stupid) if it was already possible to disbelieve just by looking, I say this is the exception that proves the rule.

[Segev]

Just to clarify, I'm asking only about illusions that *inherently by the nature of their subject* are ‘ephemeral’ or of similar design. Solid objects are easy enough to understand.

In your example of the tree, IF a character were to get to the tree and swing their sword thru it or at it, then we have interaction. So for the sake of my question, assume you can get to and occupy the space in which the illusion was created. At that point, what type of interaction do you think can reveal the illusion?

We already have an opinion from Deophaun above that illusions can be made such that you are not allowed to interact with them.

Even though interaction is one of the listed ways to get a save, do people think that illusions can be crafted that *inherently by the nature of their subject* simply cannot be interacted with to gain such save, and that studying it is thus *required*?

That would be the purpose of designing it so that you cannot interact with it "by its very nature," yes. It does make them of limited utility. And if you've been reading my posts, you'll note that I've suggested it might take a touch more effort to really "sell" it.