Illusions vs Blindsense and Blindsight. Counters?

[Silva Stormrage]

Hey, so in an upcoming campaign I am going to be playing an illusionist style character (Not an actual wizard illusionist I have a template that lets me create 3 permanent illusions a day and thats my main combat tool) and I am worried about blindsight/blindsense just utterly countering my illusions.

My current understanding is that blindsense/blindsight aren't fooled by visual or auditory illusions like permanent image. Is that the correct interpretation? If it is is there any feat/skill/obscure PRC that would prevent my illusions from being countered like that?

My current plan is to use things like ghosts and allips as illusions as those aren't normally detected by blindsight/blindsense but I would like to be able to use other illusions as well.

[Deophaun]

Blindsight/blindsense might possibly be fooled by auditory illusions. It depends on how that sense works for that particular creature; if it sounds like something should be there, and hearing's the only thing the sense is based off of, then there's really no reason it shouldn't be able to work. If it's based on heat or electricity or vibrations or something more arcane that the effect cannot reproduce, then you're out of luck.

[Silva Stormrage]

Blindsight/blindsense might possibly be fooled by auditory illusions. It depends on how that sense works for that particular creature; if it sounds like something should be there, and hearing's the only thing the sense is based off of, then there's really no reason it shouldn't be able to work. If it's based on heat or electricity or vibrations or something more arcane that the effect cannot reproduce, then you're out of luck.

Ya unfortunately my main concern is with the graft "Glaring Eye" which gives 30ft blindsense. Considering it's based on dragon's blindsense which is based off of vibrations that one is going to bypass most of my illusions outright except for things like incorporeal creatures or similar effects.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It also depends on the illusion spell you use. Silent Image is visual only, but Permanent Image is visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal so it should work against at least some forms of blindsight/sense.
Against vibration-based blindsight your best bet is to make illusions of something that wouldn't be detected by it in the first place. An illusion of Cloudkill or Acid Fog is just as good at area denial as a wall in most cases after all.

Otherwise you're sadly out of luck. PF does have an option for that iirc, but 3.5 doesn't afaik.

[Darth Ultron]

I' say it depends on what senses the figment/glamer affects. If it's visual-only, blindsight will reveal it (though if the blindsighted being is also using regular vision at the time, it may think it's an incorporeal being instead). If it makes sounds, blindsight based on sonar would probably be fooled.

It's the basic idea that illusions ARE real and CAN fool a targets senses. Illusions that have sonic, thermal and tactile components CAN fool someone who can't see.

But just to stick with visual illusions....if your eye can see the illusion, then it's ''really there'' to be seen, and the illusion is using magic to fool your eyes. Really, there are tons of natural effects that can do this. And if an illusion can effect the eyes (or ears or such) then it can also effect things like Echo Location.

And illusion with a tactile part will ''bounce back and echo'' and ''vibrate''.

More simply, Blindsesne/sight does not say ''Immune to all illusions''.

[Deophaun]

More simply, Blindsesne/sight does not say ''Immune to all illusions''.
Unless you're a grell.

[Necroticplague]

More simply, Blindsesne/sight does not say ''Immune to all illusions''.
No, but it’s definitely immune to visual-only illusions. Otherwise the Ooze traits would be nonsense.

Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight.
If Blindsight was fooled by visual illusions, then they wouldn’t be immune to them, since Blindisght is the only sense they have.

[Deophaun]

If Blindsight was fooled by visual illusions, then they wouldn’t be immune to them, since Blindisght is the only sense they have.
Actually, if that description is correct, then by RAW blind with blindsight is blanket immunity to illusions, whether they be glamers, figments, phantasms, or shadow. Because "illusions" is not qualified.

[Doctor Awkward]

Actually, if that description is correct, then by RAW blind with blindsight is blanket immunity to illusions, whether they be glamers, figments, phantasms, or shadow. Because "illusions" is not qualified.

Yes it is.


Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight.

The sentence is providing a list of examples of attack forms that rely on sight. All of the things in the list are qualified by the end of the sentence.

If it were intended to be a blanket immunity to all illusions, then the list items would be would be separated with the conjunction "or", indicating that the items should all be considered individually, and without relation to whether they rely on sight.

[Deophaun]

The sentence is providing a list of examples of attack forms that rely on sight. All of the things in the list are qualified by the end of the sentence.
No. Everything delineated by a comma is its own thing. That's how commas work in lists.

If it were intended
And here's where you fall down. I said RAW, not RAI. What is intended is not at issue.

[Doctor Awkward]

No. Everything delineated by a comma is its own thing. That's how commas work in lists.

And here's where you fall down. I said RAW, not RAI. What is intended is not at issue.

Obvious intent always matters. Trying to interpret the rules without common sense and intent leaves you with unplayable game.

and
conjunction
1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly.

Attack forms that rely on sight is the direct object of that sentence. Everything in the list preceding it are appositives that serve to define "attack forms that rely on sight".
Parsing out singular words from the list and attempting to change their intended meaning isn't using the Rules as Written. It's rules-lawyering.

[ayvango]

Blind does not get you immune to ghost sound for example. So, some illusions works for blinded targets.