Illusion Spell question

[alex1g]

I have a question. Red Dragon cast Persistent Image. Can I create a illusionary breathe weapon attack? If so is that enough to for players to say that they have "interacted" with the dragon. I say no. What are the specifics of "interact" then?

[SilverLeaf167]

There's no reason an illusion spell couldn't create an illusionary breath weapon. However, if you want to use Persistent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/persistentImage.htm) of all things, you have to give the illusion a defined script when you cast it (or at least that's the way I read it, it's a bit ambiguous). Major Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorImage.htm) is a more practical choice if the dragon can afford to concentrate on the spell.

As for interaction, it's very loosely defined, but I think most people would say that physical contact definitely counts.


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.

Also, not taking damage from the breath weapon would arguably count as "proof" that it isn't real, or at least make the players realize that something's amiss. They might not automatically know that the dragon itself is fake, but the breath weapon? Definitely.


A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

[Duke of Urrel]

I believe most dungeon masters interpret the phrase "interact with" to mean that either the "creatures encountering an illusion" initiate the interaction or the illusion itself, if it is a creature, initiates the interaction. So if an illusory dragon tries to intimidate creatures, most dungeon masters will call that "interaction" and let the creatures make Will saves to disbelieve the illusion.

An illusion can't really attack real creatures, because it can't really harm them. It's better for an illusion to intimidate than it is for it to attack, because the attack usually gives the creatures proof that the illusion isn't real.

I personally don't have a strong preference for the Major Image spell or the Persistent Image spell. Having to come up with a script doesn't place any strict limits on what an illusion can do – except that you can't change your mind once you've created the script. Moreover, after you cast the Persistent Image spell, you can cast other spells. For example, you can create a script whereby an illusory dragon created by the Persistent Image spell burns up some illusory creatures – perhaps created by the Minor Image spell – as a "demonstration" of its power. You can also create a script for the Persistent Image dragon to speak and make threats that seem real.

[Lazymancer]

Can I create a illusionary breathe weapon attack?
Yes.


What are the specifics of "interact" then?
Paying attention to it should be enough.

If illusion is passive, PCs need to study illusion to get a saving throw. A move action is suggested as being sufficient, but I prefer standard action (both are homerules).


Since illusion of dragon breath is active and initiates interaction itself, PCs clearly get to roll Will to disbelieve. However, I'd make players roll their Reflex saving throws against illusionary breath first (thus, wasting re-rolls/immediate actions). Only then do they get to roll Will.

Keep in mind - if you are using regular figment illusion (Major Image, for example) and someone actually gets struck by breath (fails Reflex throw; which, I assume, should happen only if someone rolls natural 1 on Reflex and keeps it), I think illusion should automatically disappear before any Will rolls are made.


P.s. You might want to read "All About Illusions" series of articles.

[alex1g]

Yes.


Paying attention to it should be enough.

If illusion is passive, PCs need to study illusion to get a saving throw. A move action is suggested as being sufficient, but I prefer standard action (both are homerules).


Since illusion of dragon breath is active and initiates interaction itself, PCs clearly get to roll Will to disbelieve. However, I'd make players roll their Reflex saving throws against illusionary breath first (thus, wasting re-rolls/immediate actions). Only then do they get to roll Will.

Keep in mind - if you are using regular figment illusion (Major Image, for example) and someone actually gets struck by breath (fails Reflex throw; which, I assume, should happen only if someone rolls natural 1 on Reflex and keeps it), I think illusion should automatically disappear before any Will rolls are made.


P.s. You might want to read "All About Illusions" series of articles.

I disagree with that because you knowingly are disbelieving before the breathe weapon interacts with the player.
Thats like saying make a disbelieve check save for the arrow that is being shot at you before it it hits.

[Zanos]

As for interaction, it's very loosely defined, but I think most people would say that physical contact definitely counts.
If it's one illusion spell, I would say that disbelieving the breath weapon or being faced with proof it's not real would ruin the entire illusion. If you want redundancy, you need to split it up among multiple spells.

[Lazymancer]

I disagree with that because you knowingly are disbelieving before the breathe weapon interacts with the player.
I don't understand what you are talking about. You quoted the whole post.

[alex1g]

What I meant is that he would make a save AFTER the breathe weapon happen. And since this is a Glamer he would get a +4 to his save.

[SilverLeaf167]

Next part of the question would the illusionary dragon breathe weapon do damage if the player did not make his save??/

No, normal illusion spells like Figments never become physical or have physical effects (apart from limited sensory stuff) for any reason. Major Image (and others) include "thermal components", so the characters would feel hot when the blast hits them, but the pain would disappear immediately afterwards and they'd notice that there's no actual damage.

For physical effects you need Shadow spells, like Shadow Evocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowEvocation.htm) and Shadow Conjuration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowConjuration.htm). They deal normal damage on a failed Will save, and partial damage (20%, further reduced by Reflex etc.) on a successful one.

EDIT: Huh, original post got edited.


What I meant is that he would make a save AFTER the breathe weapon happen. And since this is a Glamer he would get a +4 to his save.
Well, that's what they said too. And just to nitpick, it's a Figment, not a Glamer. Not sure what +4 bonus you're talking about.

[jmax]

P.s. You might want to read "All About Illusions" series of articles.

I'll second this. It's not officially part of the rules, but it's very helpful. I don't agree with everything in it, but I wouldn't go so far as to state that any part of it is inherently invalid.

Part III (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a) has the relevant bit for interaction and disbelief.


Paying attention to it should be enough.

The rules specifically contradict this:



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. For example, if a party encounters a section of illusory floor, the character in the lead would receive a saving throw if she stopped and studied the floor or if she probed the floor.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. For example, a character making a successful saving throw against a figment of an illusory section of floor knows the "floor" isn't safe to walk on and can see what lies below (light permitting), but he or she can still note where the figment lies.

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. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.


Simply paying attention to it isn't the same as studying carefully. The rules don't spell out exactly how long it should take to study carefully, but the examples given suggest it's not a trivial investment of time - I'd give it a standard action at a minimum. Note that, in All About Illusions, Skip Williams suggests that a move action is appropriate in some circumstances. Not how I'd rule it, but it's a perfectly valid interpretation.

As far as the breath weapon goes, I'd say not getting toasted presents pretty solid evidence that at least the breath weapon itself isn't real. Debatable on the whole dragon - but why would a dragon use an illusory breath weapon? I'd feel reasonable calling it proof that the dragon isn't real, and at a minimum I'd at least allow a saving throw with a nice bonus (i.e. that +4 for allies telling you it's fake) - probably just take as proof though.

Unless the character in question has Evasion, in which case I think it's totally fair to roll a Will save for him (which, to avoid giving away the ruse, unfortunately must be done secretly) to see whether he realizes that he took no damage because it was an illusion or because he handily avoided the whole thing. That character is used to dodging breath weapons in their entirety, so for him it's not proof of anything.

[Lazymancer]

Simply paying attention to it isn't the same as studying carefully. The rules don't spell out exactly how long it should take to study carefully, but the examples given suggest it's not a trivial investment of time - I'd give it a standard action at a minimum. Note that, in All About Illusions, Skip Williams suggests that a move action is appropriate in some circumstances. Not how I'd rule it, but it's a perfectly valid interpretation.
I'm quite certain you are agreeing with me completely here.


If illusion is passive, PCs need to study illusion to get a saving throw. A move action is suggested as being sufficient, but I prefer standard action (both are homerules).



I'd feel reasonable calling it proof that the dragon isn't real, and at a minimum I'd at least allow a saving throw with a nice bonus (i.e. that +4 for allies telling you it's fake) - probably just take as proof though.
I guess, I'm kinda used to interpreting "The image disappears when struck by an opponent" as "Major Image pops when it interacts with moving object". Which is a debatable interpretation.

[jmax]

I'm quite certain you are agreeing with me completely here.

Maybe I'm just interpreting "paying attention" differently than you are. To me that means acting in accordance with its presence - there's a dragon swooping down, so I try to dodge out of the way. If you mean watching it actively while not taking other significant actions, then yes, we're probably on the same page.


I guess, I'm kinda used to interpreting "The image disappears when struck by an opponent" as "Major Image pops when it interacts with moving object". Which is a debatable interpretation.

If you as DM argued that, I wouldn't argue too strenuously against it. I do feel that "disappears when struck by an opponent" is unreasonably limiting, though - what if I use selected image to make an illusion of a ghost? It's totally normal for weapons to pass right through ghosts - they're incorporeal. And what if you make an illusion of a fog cloud? Swing a sword at fog generally doesn't result in things going clang.

Totally reasonable to allow a saving throw if you're sticking a sword in it, though. That's definitely interaction :biggrin: