PDA

View Full Version : Illusions: Fluff or Mechanics?



Pippa the Pixie
2018-12-29, 06:05 PM
So, between 3.5E, 5E and Pathfinder, I've been seeing more illusions being used by players in games. Like an illusion Renaissance. Though it has made some troubles.

Some illusions have a straightforward mechanical effect. They don't cause to much trouble, other then when players try to stretch the effect. The player wants to make the illusion of the worst nightmare ever....and the spell just does a fear effect, period.

The real problem comes from the more fluff illusions. The ones that let the players use their imagination to make an illusion of nearly anything. And this type of illusion has no mechanics or nearly no mechanics. And this brings in the wrinkle.

A lot of players seem to want illusions to have the effect of a wish spell....and I just don't get it.

Like in a recent game the player made an illusion that a house was on fire. And that was fine by the rules, but then the player expected everyone in town to rush over and fight the fire...so the character could break another charter out of jail. But the idea that everyone would just rush over really is wishful thinking. Even more so that the jail guards would leave their posts.

So, what to do? The player is hinging all their hopes on an illusion that likely won't work. So, as a DM do you just hand wave it? Just have everyone be dumber then dumb and rush over to the illusion of the fire? Or do you have people react a bit more real?

Particle_Man
2018-12-29, 06:09 PM
What would the town do if the pc had set the house on fire for real?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-12-29, 06:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with having a short OOC conversation with the players at your thought process. It's okay to just tell them in advance "Okay, well, a house being on fire is obviously a serious problem for the town, but I don't think literally everyone including trained guards at an important post will go deal with it."

Psyren
2018-12-29, 06:33 PM
Yeah, as those two responses should make clear, your problem actually has nothing to do with illusions - it's about your player coming up with a plan that relies on a potentially unreasonable reaction by key NPCs. In short, they should probably add a little something for this to work.

Setting a fire (whether real, or fake but believed) would certainly be a substantial distraction, but the guards would be more likely to just let the town handle it. However, with everyone yelling and running over there, maybe they won't notice as the guards are shanked or clobbered and dragged into a nearby alley. Or said guards might try to raise the alarm but be drowned out in all the shouting. Or maybe a (real) fire can be intensified into something that the town is clearly struggling with, convincing the guards to join in.

Basically, the opening post makes it clear that you think an illusionary fire on its own shouldn't be enough, and that's okay. But try to work with your player's idea instead of dismissing it outright, and definitely don't try to litigate the entire illusion school based on one scenario :smalltongue:

CarpeGuitarrem
2018-12-29, 06:54 PM
Here's another take you could use for it: illusions allow players an additional method for using deception-related skills. You can't normally bluff that a house is on fire, but if you were to use an illusion to make it look like it was on fire, you could make that bluff attempt. It would be the same thing even if you were using non-magical illusions, i.e. stage magic and chicanery. Maybe it's a house rule, but it seems like a pretty good one. Set the DC, make them roll the Bluff, and the results should tell you who responds--a few people who are easily fooled, most of the town, or somewhere in between. And anyone who saw the flames but saw through the illusion (maybe the sound isn't right, or the heat isn't right, or something else) would probably start wondering what was going on...

Berenger
2018-12-29, 07:56 PM
Like in a recent game the player made an illusion that a house was on fire. And that was fine by the rules, but then the player expected everyone in town to rush over and fight the fire...

"Everyone" may be an exaggeration, but the expectation that at least several hundred people in the city district will leave their work or their beds and rush to watch or help with firefighting is entirely reasonable. As is the expectation that this may drown out cries from a prison guard somewhere in the vicinity or delay reinforcements from city guards stationed elsewhere.

Quertus
2018-12-29, 08:38 PM
As others have said, this is not a problem with illusions, this is a problem with your players, and getting them to have realistic expectations of human behavior.

I'll go one step further, and say that the illusions you are maligning are the good ones - the outcome is reasonable, the fluff matches the crunch. Whereas the other type, the fluff and crunch don't necessarily match.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-12-29, 08:46 PM
I will say "No, but" is a very important GM tool. In this case "No, an illusionary fire won't distract everyone in the town and let you break into the jail unopposed. But it's a good start to a plan, it might at least create a big enough distraction that it would be easier to sneak in past the guards or kill them without them raising a general alarm."

NichG
2018-12-29, 09:11 PM
To me, mechanics basically serve the purpose of being guarantees that players can structure plans around. So using something in a non-mechanical way is fine, but has a consequence of not having guarantees associated with it - it may result in outcomes significantly different than what the player imagined would happen. That's the tradeoff - you can both get much more impactful results but you lose that certainty and control.

A Silent Image of a 'horrible nightmare creature' might just be ignored by an NPC on the basis of 'this NPC is particularly brave/cynical/etc' or it may give a chronically nervous NPC a heart attack and kill them without a save. A Phantasmal Killer spell is a promise that e.g. 'this NPC is particularly brave' must be represented in the form of their Will save, and they still have to roll. You might be able get the effects of Phantasmal Killer with Silent Image in perfect conditions just relying on the fluff, but you have no guarantees that you ever can either - you're, inherently, leaving that up to the GM by choosing to take that approach.

Knaight
2018-12-30, 12:03 AM
There are mechanics attached, they're just qualitative. As for the specifics, the phrase "what are you trying to do here" is a magic one. That doesn't mean it's either doomed to do nothing or an automatic success. The fire would probably draw a lot of people to it quickly (fires in cities are bad news today, packing the buildings in closer, using more flammable materials, and not having modern fire suppression really doesn't help), but probably not the prison guards. Still the streets being crowded could easily clog the route for reinforcements.

NichG
2018-12-30, 01:02 AM
There are mechanics attached, they're just qualitative. As for the specifics, the phrase "what are you trying to do here" is a magic one. That doesn't mean it's either doomed to do nothing or an automatic success. The fire would probably draw a lot of people to it quickly (fires in cities are bad news today, packing the buildings in closer, using more flammable materials, and not having modern fire suppression really doesn't help), but probably not the prison guards. Still the streets being crowded could easily clog the route for reinforcements.

What I mean is, the way in which the city responds to the illusion isn't part of any sort of pre-existing promise or guarantee. So players need to read their GM to understand what is likely to happen - they're taking a risk that their assumptions about how the situation will play out in their GM's head may be wrong, and they're in effect asking the GM to make a ruling. So whether I would try this would depend on what kind of person is GMing, and I wouldn't have an expectation that things would play out exactly as I might imagine in my mind's eye regardless.

I might find that, after placing the illusion, it takes longer than expected for people to notice since from far away its just black smoke and the overall volume of the illusion of black smoke is small compared to the smoke from a real fire, so for people who are busy, surrounded by a set of buildings that fill the horizon, etc, its actually not that noticeable. Then, the first 5 who arrive at the scene notice that the illusion looks like fire and smoke, but there's no heat or sound, and this gets reported to the guard who go on high alert due to reports of saboteur-type activity in the city. I might also find that the entire city pours out or evacuates or goes on looting sprees, and is hyper-responsive to the illusion compared to my prior expectations. Both of these scenarios are possible outcomes, so I have to consider that either could happen or use some other knowledge to try to infer which is more likely (established facts about the city, metagame knowledge about the GM's style, etc). If I come to a wrong conclusion through that inference, then (because I was engaging the game at that level) moving forward from that point is part of the game that I've asked to play by taking advantage of fuzzy (but more flexible) methods of interacting with the game world over sharper (but more restricted) mechanical guarantees.

Darth Ultron
2018-12-30, 06:28 PM
The fluff illusions fall under the general half of the D&D/Pathfinder game that is Role Playing. The crunch mechanical illusions are on he other roll playing side of the game: what happens is exactly what the mechanical rules says. Page 101 says a character effected by this spell gets a -2 to X, and that is it.

The big disconnect is that the roll playing spells are very boring, but everyone knows exactly what they do and what their effects are....but they offer little room for creativity or imagination. Spell X does this effect, game on. Period. Role playing skills do offer endless creativity and imagination, but are way to open ended for any type of game play. They are wishful powers with no game based effects. Hood of the Cobra makes an effected creature seeing is shaken, using major image to make a large cobra might have some sort of role playing effect....or not.

As with any role playing, not just illusions but all role playing in the game, you need to know your DM. Each DM has a view point, and as a player you need to match it. It's a bit pointless to even complain about it. If the DM does not like something or does not think a single way, then trying to play that way in a game won't get you anywhere.

Most DM's will role play people and creatures as fictional individuals and not themselves or game characters. This makes any NPC far less likely to fall for simple player illusions (or role playing in general). NPC guards won't fall for simple illusions as they simply won't leave their posts over something simple. A lot of this comes from fiction where the players see things that are way too easy.

Illusions, again like role playing in general, require a bit of investment in the fantasy world by the player. While 'fire' is a good general generic thing to get peoples attention, it's not the automatic default best one. So after knowing your DM, you need to know your in-game target. The illusion of an attractive person can often provide a huge distraction, often much more then a fire. A wounded member of the same group as the guard also can work great, with huge bonus points if you toss in the likeness and name of a real person.

For new players, I often let their illusions ''half work" and let them ''almost" do something. Then guide the players to the much better illusions that will work.

Player Characters, however, are simply too easy. Far too many players play the game as themselves, or worse just as a game and would never consider role playing a character. This makes players easy to fool with illusions, every time. For example many players are greedy or power hungry, so an illusion of gold will get them to act in a very set greedy way.

icefractal
2018-12-31, 01:55 AM
Player Characters, however, are simply too easy. Far too many players play the game as themselves, or worse just as a game and would never consider role playing a character. This makes players easy to fool with illusions, every time. For example many players are greedy or power hungry, so an illusion of gold will get them to act in a very set greedy way.
TBF though, GMs have the ability to present their illusions properly (indistinguishable from fact until someone sees through it). Players have to OOC tell the GM it's illusory and hope the latter can be both consciously and subconsciously impartial.

In limited contexts, like mixing real and illusory conjuration in combat, it's possible for a single player to use hidden information and present their illusions properly. But unfortunately I haven't come across anything that would work in more general use.

Darth Ultron
2018-12-31, 04:29 PM
TBF though, GMs have the ability to present their illusions properly (indistinguishable from fact until someone sees through it). Players have to OOC tell the GM it's illusory and hope the latter can be both consciously and subconsciously impartial.

This is just one big way DMs and Players are different.

Jay R
2019-01-02, 03:09 PM
What I mean is, the way in which the city responds to the illusion isn't part of any sort of pre-existing promise or guarantee. So players need to read their GM to understand what is likely to happen - they're taking a risk that their assumptions about how the situation will play out in their GM's head may be wrong, and they're in effect asking the GM to make a ruling. So whether I would try this would depend on what kind of person is GMing, and I wouldn't have an expectation that things would play out exactly as I might imagine in my mind's eye regardless.

This is pretty much true of any creative aspect of D&D play. Bribery requires me to think about whether this NPC is bribable at all; turning invisible requires me to consider whether the monster can see the invisible, etc.

Yes, learning to read the DM is a crucial aspect of elite play, and people who don't want to learn that skill are limiting their character's abilities, just as somebody who doesn't want to learn what feats are available is limiting them.

It's a question of learning to understand people -- what appeals to them, what bothers them, what encourages them. This skill is crucial for writing school essays, having job interviews, dating, and most other social aspects of life, so it's not unfair to be expected to learn it, and it's good training for life in general.

D&D is nerd socialization training, and many of us, being nerds, resist it. When we stop resisting it and embrace the people skills aspect of it, D&D is more fun, you can play it better, and it helps you for life.

Kaptin Keen
2019-01-02, 05:24 PM
How long does it take for everyone to realise there is no fire? Unless it's a fairly high level spell, it's over in a couple of rounds, at most.

It's an awful, awful plan. It doesn't work. Just tell them.

Now, if you're clever about it, you cast the illusion in through the bars, making the fire inside the prison, and hope the guards will evacuate the prisoners while they wait for water to be brought from the well. And when the guards bring out the prisoner you want, you disguise yourself as the watch sargeant, and shout a forceful command to secure him in that wagon over there.

And ride out, and laugh all the way.

How old are your players?

Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-04, 08:11 PM
How old are your players?

We are all around thirty.

I wonder why illusions are such a special case though, as players don't just do things in the normal game play?

Darth Ultron
2019-01-06, 08:52 PM
I wonder why illusions are such a special case though, as players don't just do things in the normal game play?

Both D&D and PF simply need more illusion spells. Specifically illusion spells that do specific things. The basic illusion spells that just make images, by their nature, need to be limited because anything can be made. That is why the school of illusion is more then just images. And why the game needs a lot more illusion spells.

NichG
2019-01-06, 09:25 PM
We are all around thirty.

I wonder why illusions are such a special case though, as players don't just do things in the normal game play?

Also Wish and Polymorph Any Object.

IMO, the real opportunity for an improvised/freeform caster is Bestow Curse, which says 'You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above.' There's an incredible amount which can be accomplished with that, as long as the DM is open to that sort of play. 'You are cursed to share the nightmares of anyone who sleeps in the same room as you' = cheap oneiromancy, 'You are cursed such that you cannot hide your position, and those seeking you will find you with preternatural ease' = tracking spell, 'You are cursed such that any deal you enter into will sour for both you and the other party' = protection against being leveraged or threatened into things, etc.

MoiMagnus
2019-01-07, 12:47 PM
Like in a recent game the player made an illusion that a house was on fire. And that was fine by the rules, but then the player expected everyone in town to rush over and fight the fire...so the character could break another charter out of jail. But the idea that everyone would just rush over really is wishful thinking. Even more so that the jail guards would leave their posts.

So, what to do? The player is hinging all their hopes on an illusion that likely won't work. So, as a DM do you just hand wave it? Just have everyone be dumber then dumb and rush over to the illusion of the fire? Or do you have people react a bit more real?

I would make a skill test. They are using an illusion as a way to convince people to do something, so they need a check. That's like expecting you will convince a NPC just because the argument you're using feel convincing to you: maybe the NPC will feel otherwise, or misinterpret what you're saying, or is naive and will be easily convinced.

This could be Charisma check (or any bluff-related skill), an Intelligence check (for making a very realistic illusion), or a Wisdom check (or any psychology-related skill to anticipate correctly the behavior of the guard), or multiple of them if the task is difficult.

Just react in the same way you would react if the bard of the group said something like "I try to convince the guard that there is a fire outside and they should go out to check". (maybe adapt the exact test and DC, but that's the idea)

Telonius
2019-01-07, 03:52 PM
Part of the problem is that illusions, generally, can be extremely powerful. If you control what someone's senses are telling them, you can direct their thoughts and actions. It's mind-control lite. A well-played and creative Illusionist is really freakin' scary for exactly that reason. They can get a massive amount of utility out of a low-level effect. The flip side of it is that immunity to mind-affecting effects is not all that difficult to get. Yeah, a pile of commoners are always going to fall for it, but as you rise in level more of your enemies are going to start being immune to your shtick.

TerryHerc
2019-01-07, 07:48 PM
Depending on the use of the illusion, you may need to look to other rules to resolve the action. For example, if instead of a fire the characters created a vision of an unspeakable horror, you might reference the rules for temporary madness. Try to encourage the players out-of-the-box ideas so they can find a creative solution, and then apply the existing rules to resolve the situation.

Sometimes ideas that sound great have a low likelihood of success. As the DM you can set the challenge rating on a related skill check as part of a multi-step plan. I recommend you be clear with your players about what they need to do (roll) to succeed and the consequences of failure, so they are clear on what the stakes are.

Pippa the Pixie
2019-01-13, 08:29 PM
Both D&D and PF simply need more illusion spells. Specifically illusion spells that do specific things. The basic illusion spells that just make images, by their nature, need to be limited because anything can be made. That is why the school of illusion is more then just images. And why the game needs a lot more illusion spells.

I do wish they had some sort of generic illusion mechanics per level for reference. Only a couple illusions mention things like how loud they can be per level.

One thing my players have asked about is sound illusions. Ghost sound is a cantrip...and then, well are there more sound illusion spells? Is there a 3rd level 'major sound' spell? Anything?


Depending on the use of the illusion, you may need to look to other rules to resolve the action. For example, if instead of a fire the characters created a vision of an unspeakable horror, you might reference the rules for temporary madness. Try to encourage the players out-of-the-box ideas so they can find a creative solution, and then apply the existing rules to resolve the situation.

Sometimes ideas that sound great have a low likelihood of success. As the DM you can set the challenge rating on a related skill check as part of a multi-step plan. I recommend you be clear with your players about what they need to do (roll) to succeed and the consequences of failure, so they are clear on what the stakes are.

The tricky thing is though many illusions can make an illusion of anything with few limits. But there have to be mechanical limits...but what?

I can do a ability check for jump onto a rock...but what do you do when the rock is an illusion...and more so the caster can change it around at any time?

Kane0
2019-01-13, 08:57 PM
How the DM deals with illusions should definitely be a session 0 thing. Its worth being clear on things like that which require rulings, and more importantly insight into the DMs decisionmaking process.
Doubly so if anyone has expressed interest in being an illusionist, enchanter, assassin, etc.

Jay R
2019-01-13, 09:15 PM
I do wish they had some sort of generic illusion mechanics per level for reference. Only a couple illusions mention things like how loud they can be per level.

Take those and extrapolate. Assume the volume of a minor image is akin to the volume of a ghost sound - but with more definition.


One thing my players have asked about is sound illusions. Ghost sound is a cantrip...and then, well are there more sound illusion spells? Is there a 3rd level 'major sound' spell? Anything?

Yes. Minor Image is a combination of Ghost Sound and Silent Image. It combines the sound and sight illusion. Similarly, the third level major sound spell is major image, which combines sound, sight and heat. In my last game, I had failed to distract the darkmantles with a hypnotic pattern, and realized that their sight was too poor to fool. So my next illusion was a major image of a bowman shooting up at them, and I specified the sounds of chainmail and heavy boots, and the body heat. The DM ruled that this made the illusion convincing.


The tricky thing is though many illusions can make an illusion of anything with few limits. But there have to be mechanical limits...but what?

The problem is that illusion spells are all about how people react, and people's reactions are infinitely varied. Suppose a snake appeared in front of a group of people in our world. Some people would be terrified, some revolted, some mildly disturbed, but I would be interested, and trying to identify the species. You cannot come up with a simple chart or mechanic for people's reactions to an illusion of a snake for the same re you reason that you cannot come up with a simple chart or mechanic for people's reactions to a real snake. Therefore NPC reactions to illusions must be adjudicated like any other NPC reactions. The mechanical limits of various types of illusions (figment, shadow, etc.) have been described in the text. Those limits plus the DM's judgement of people's reactions to them provide the background to adjudicate how an illusion works on those people.


I can do a ability check for jump onto a rock...but what do you do when the rock is an illusion...and more so the caster can change it around at any time?

Make the same ability check until the NPC actually contacts the rock. Then make a saving throw vs. illusion, and follow the rules for figments, etc.

But something as varied as an illusion must be handled with DM judgment, not with a single simple mechanic.

JoeJ
2019-01-13, 09:27 PM
The problem is that illusion spells are all about how people react, and people's reactions are infinitely varied. Suppose a snake appeared in front of a group of people in our world. Some people would be terrified, some revolted, some mildly disturbed, but I would be interested, and trying to identify the species. You cannot come up with a simple chart or mechanic for people's reactions to an illusion of a snake for the same re you reason that you cannot come up with a simple chart or mechanic for people's reactions to a real snake.

Thor, for example, would try to pick up the snake and admire it.

BreaktheStatue
2019-01-13, 11:28 PM
I think the "Illusion Renaissance" is largely related to a surge in online forum/Youtube guides on "gamebreaking" spells.

Players who read these come to the conclusion that breaking the game for lulz is the ultimate goal, and the best way to do that is to out-smart/out-litigate the DM with gamebreaking spells, often illusion magic. I know, because I was that kind of player when I started-out. It didn't end well for my forest gnome Illusionist wizard, and I was frustrated until I realized the idea of breaking a cooperative game was anti-social and stupid.

Particle_Man
2019-01-14, 01:49 AM
There is a certain asymmetry to illusions. The DM has prep time to set up that one cool illusion of an NPC (before the players discover it and slaughter the NPC). PCs usually are more "in the moment" and "on the move" and don't have as much time to set things up.

Kinda similar with assassinations, comes to think of it.