Can I believe my own illusions?

[Brennan1612]

in the PHB under illusion spells page 173 it states;
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."
Does this imply that you can still make the saving throw if you choose to because several other things state things like, "automatically succeed the saving throw"
I am specifically using Shades to summon a creature to cast a buff on our party
Thank you

[Zanos]

Illusions are a pretty hotly debated topic.

Consider:
A character faced with proof an illusion is not real automatically disbelieves it and does not make a save.
A character can roll a spellcraft check while a spell is being cast to determine what spell it is.
Alternatively, a character can make a slightly higher DC spellcraft check when he looks at a magical effect to discern what spell it is.

An enemy wizard casts silent image.
A wizard PC succeeds his spellcraft check to identify that he is casting silent image, and a wolf appears.
Alternatively, the character succeeds his spellcraft check to identify the wolf as a silent image.

Does the successful check count as proof that what the character is looking at is an illusion? I think that logically identifying something as a silent image would count as proof that it is an illusion. But saying that every image spell in the game is trumped by having a decent investment in spellcraft is certainly not something that most DMs are going to be amenable to.

TL;DR: ask your DM because the books don't actually say what is considered to be "proof." If you want my opinion? I think it's fine; characters can generally accept the results of spells if they want to.

[Brennan1612]

Illusions are a pretty hotly debated topic.

Consider:
A character faced with proof an illusion is not real automatically disbelieves it and does not make a save.


The books don't exactly say this though, unless there was an errata somewhere, it just says; "needs no saving throw." not that you automatically succeed, which would imply you can make a saving throw if you want to, does it not?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Does the successful check count as proof that what the character is looking at is an illusion? I think that logically identifying something as a silent image would count as proof that it is an illusion. But saying that every image spell in the game is trumped by having a decent investment in spellcraft is certainly not something that most DMs are going to be amenable to.
I don't see the problem. Any illusionist can counter that by blocking LoS, using sleight of hand to hide his casting or False Theurgy to mask it.
And that's on top of stuff like Insidious Magic, the gnome illusionist substitution levels, Chains of Disbelief and so on.

If someone doesn't use any of those options their illusions will have a weakness to being easily circumvented by anyone who has enough skill in spellcraft, which makes sense to me.


TL;DR: ask your DM because the books don't actually say what is considered to be "proof." If you want my opinion? I think it's fine; characters can generally accept the results of spells if they want to.
Characters can fail a save if they want to, but afaik you can't roll a save when you don't need to.
And fluff-wise making yourself believe something you know for a fact isn't true is a little more silly than i like at my tables.

Not RAW (because as you said there is none) but i wouldn't allow it mostly for the second reason.
"You can treat your own illusions as real if you just believe really hard" simply doesn't make sense to me as a ruling.

[Telonius]

It's not completely clear, so it really has to be, "ask your DM." I know that's an extremely unsatisfying answer.

Personally I'd totally allow it to happen. People believe their own BS often enough in real life; this is just the magical equivalent of that. And it could be an interesting character point for an illusionist to believe what he's doing is the reality, and what we usually see is fake. (Killer Gnomes can get shadow spells to be greater than 100% reality; that's all the evidence the character needs)

[Fizban]

The 3.5 FAQ has no entry, but as with a number of such immediate and nigh-foundational questions, it can be found in the 3.0 FAQ, which for some reason they didn't bother to port forward into the "new" edition.


If I cast a shadow evocation spell and duplicate a wall of
force, do I get all the effects of a wall of force? I think so,
because shadow evocation creates all the effects of the spell,
including touch, sight, sound, and so forth. Would the
shadow wall of force prevent creatures from passing
through it? The wall is invisible, but it can be touched. As
the caster, I disbelieve my own spells, so could I cast spells
through the shadow wall of force?
You cannot duplicate a wall of force spell with the shadow
evocation spell, but you could do so with the greater shadow
evocation spell.
A shadow wall of force is partially real and remains in place
whether it is seen or not. Creatures that fail to disbelieve the
wall cannot pass through it. Their spells do not have line of
effect, and ranged or melee attacks bounce off the wall.
To receive a save to disbelieve the wall, a creature must
interact with it somehow—by touching it, firing an arrow
through it, or attempting to cast a spell through it. The spell
description states that nondamaging effects are only 40% likely
to work against those who recognize that the effect is illusory.
Thus, a creature that successfully disbelieves the wall is
blocked in 40% of its attempts to pass through it, spells cast by
the creature fail to have line of effect 40% of the time, and
ranged or melee attacks are blocked 40% of the time.
Although you do indeed disbelieve the shadow effects you
create, the wall of force is still partially real to you. Therefore,
your movement, spells, and ranged or melee attacks are also
blocked 40% of the time

Note that the question is not even whether or not you can- it is already taken as a given that you disbelieve your own spells.

I would say that as many illusions would be used for decorative purposes and I see no reason why the caster shouldn't be able to, when you've disbelieved an illusion you can choose to see it as intended anyway, switching as desired. For normal illusions. Shadow illusions should be explicitly partial in all cases except specific things like damage which they're allowed to be full on a failed save.

[Batcathat]

Personally I'd totally allow it to happen. People believe their own BS often enough in real life; this is just the magical equivalent of that.

I don't know about that. The difference between, for example, believing you're a better person than you actually are and believing that the creature you just created with illusion magic is actually real seems quite severe.

I could imagine allowing it, but in that case it would probably be a function of the magic rather than the caster just being insanely good at fooling themselves.


And it could be an interesting character point for an illusionist to believe what he's doing is the reality, and what we usually see is fake. (Killer Gnomes can get shadow spells to be greater than 100% reality; that's all the evidence the character needs)

Yeah, this could be an interesting character, but I feel like it'd be more along the lines of "this character is crazy" than "this character decided to believe their own illusions".

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sleepyphoenixx
And fluff-wise making yourself believe something you know for a fact isn't true is a little more silly than i like at my tables.

Not RAW (because as you said there is none) but i wouldn't allow it mostly for the second reason.
"You can treat your own illusions as real if you just believe really hard" simply doesn't make sense to me as a ruling.

This. If you’re casting the spell, by definition you know it’s an illusion and thus not real. It just doesn’t follow that you’d then convince yourself that it’s real.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe if you cast the illusion and then had someone cast modify memory on you to make you forget that you cast the illusion? Assume an illusion that you don’t have to personally maintain.

[Darg]

Does the successful check count as proof that what the character is looking at is an illusion? I think that logically identifying something as a silent image would count as proof that it is an illusion. But saying that every image spell in the game is trumped by having a decent investment in spellcraft is certainly not something that most DMs are going to be amenable to.

I wouldn't say so. It could have been a quickened conjuration. The only way to know for sure is to test it in some way, which is what proof is. Otherwise it's just evidence. They get conflated a lot.


The 3.5 FAQ has no entry, but as with a number of such immediate and nigh-foundational questions, it can be found in the 3.0 FAQ, which for some reason they didn't bother to port forward into the "new" edition.



Note that the question is not even whether or not you can- it is already taken as a given that you disbelieve your own spells.

I would say that as many illusions would be used for decorative purposes and I see no reason why the caster shouldn't be able to, when you've disbelieved an illusion you can choose to see it as intended anyway, switching as desired. For normal illusions. Shadow illusions should be explicitly partial in all cases except specific things like damage which they're allowed to be full on a failed save.

Shadow spells are made with shadowstuff. Being 40% real means that you interact with it as if it were real 40% of the time or it's only 40% effective. A shadow conjuration is still there no matter how much you disbelieve.

[Zanos]

The books don't exactly say this though, unless there was an errata somewhere, it just says; "needs no saving throw." not that you automatically succeed, which would imply you can make a saving throw if you want to, does it not?
I was imprecise, but yes. It's actually more of a problem because you don't make a save at all, which kind of takes the wind out of the argument that you can choose to fail the save against your own illusions.


I don't see the problem. Any illusionist can counter that by blocking LoS, using sleight of hand to hide his casting or False Theurgy to mask it.
And that's on top of stuff like Insidious Magic, the gnome illusionist substitution levels, Chains of Disbelief and so on.
If you can see an illusion spell effect, you can roll spellcraft against it to identify that it is an illusion spell effect. Chains of Disbelief helps, sure.


If someone doesn't use any of those options their illusions will have a weakness to being easily circumvented by anyone who has enough skill in spellcraft, which makes sense to me.
I think it makes sense but presents usability and balance issues. If it works for your game then it works.


Characters can fail a save if they want to, but afaik you can't roll a save when you don't need to.
And fluff-wise making yourself believe something you know for a fact isn't true is a little more silly than i like at my tables.
I just usually allow it because it lines up with the spirit of other rules regarding accepting spell effects. If you can chose to accept an affect you're normally immune to, why not just have the caster clap his hands if he believes in his shadow magic?


I wouldn't say so. It could have been a quickened conjuration. The only way to know for sure is to test it in some way, which is what proof is. Otherwise it's just evidence. They get conflated a lot.
If you make a spellcraft check to identify a visible spell effect, you identify the spell used to create it. You can know specifically that what you're looking at is a result of a silent image or a summon monster. Unless you're going to go off on a philosophical tangent about what really constitutes knowledge, that's about as good of proof as you can get. It's not a quickened conjuration because spellcraft tells you its not.

In the case of identifying the casting of the spell, the argument is weaker. But someone would have to simultaneously cast both an illusion spell and a quickened conjuration while concealing all the components of the conjuration. While certainly not impossible, I'd argue that the situation is very niche. If you allow niche cases like this to be a valid argument for it to not be proof, you're going to wind up with strange illusion rulings. Testing something isn't actually proof, either. Consider putting your hand through an illusionary stone wall. That's not proof it's an illusion, it's proof that you can't touch it. There could be many reasons for that; it could be an ethereal wall, or maybe it's a trapped wall that turned you ethereal, or maybe the wall has simply been enchanted to be insubstantial, maybe it's a natural optical illusion, or maybe it's a conjuration of smoke arranged in a specific pattern to resemble a wall.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you can see an illusion spell effect, you can roll spellcraft against it to identify that it is an illusion spell effect. Chains of Disbelief helps, sure.


The way i play it you can't roll spellcraft on an illusion in place without disbelieving it first. Imo that's what the "studied carefully" clause for disbelief is for.

It's the same as not letting people roll spellcraft to identify Disguise Self or Polymorph the moment someone with those up walks into LoS. It'd defeat the entire point of those spells.
They have to actually know they're looking at a spell effect first before trying to use spellcraft to identify it.

Yes, you could read the RAW for spellcraft as "as soon as you lay eyes on it you can identify it with spellcraft no matter what", but i don't play it that way for any other spells either.

[Zanos]

The way i play it you can't roll spellcraft on an illusion in place without disbelieving it first. Imo that's what the "studied carefully" clause for disbelief is for.

It's the same as not letting people roll spellcraft to identify Disguise Self or Polymorph the moment someone with those up walks into LoS. It'd defeat the entire point of those spells.
They have to actually know they're looking at a spell effect first before trying to use spellcraft to identify it.

Yes, you could read the RAW for spellcraft as "as soon as you lay eyes on it you can identify it with spellcraft no matter what", but i don't play it that way for any other spells either.
Even under this ruling, arcane sight is a valid target for permanency for mid-level characters.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Even under this ruling, arcane sight is a valid target for permanency for mid-level characters.

By the time you can permanency arcane sight you can also cast true seeing, so it doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to illusions.

Either way if you want to specialize in illusions at high levels you either get Insidious Magic/gnome illusionist 10 or enough quasireality on your shadow spells to not care.
All the other casters who just dabble simply have to live with it being something that only works against some enemies and switch to other schools when it doesn't.

[Darg]

The way i play it you can't roll spellcraft on an illusion in place without disbelieving it first. Imo that's what the "studied carefully" clause for disbelief is for.

It's the same as not letting people roll spellcraft to identify Disguise Self or Polymorph the moment someone with those up walks into LoS. It'd defeat the entire point of those spells.
They have to actually know they're looking at a spell effect first before trying to use spellcraft to identify it.

Yes, you could read the RAW for spellcraft as "as soon as you lay eyes on it you can identify it with spellcraft no matter what", but i don't play it that way for any other spells either.

Yeah, being too proactive with counters basically nullifies illusions as a valid choice of action. Why would you try to identify something as a spell if you believe it's real? If anything, the first spellcraft check should be to identify what you made a saving throw on. Even if someone tells you it's an illusion, you might just believe that they were fooled instead (hence you still need to roll even at a +4). The example for proof in the PHB really shows how conclusive the proof must be:


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

You fall through the floor or you spend ample time literally touching it.

[Zanos]

By the time you can permanency arcane sight you can also cast true seeing, so it doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to illusions.

Either way if you want to specialize in illusions at high levels you either get Insidious Magic/gnome illusionist 10 or enough quasireality on your shadow spells to not care.
All the other casters who just dabble simply have to live with it being something that only works against some enemies and switch to other schools when it doesn't.
The difference is that permanency, as one might infer, is permanent. True seeing lasts long enough to help in combat, but not long enough to defeat the far more dangerous illusions, which are the doors you walk past or the holes in the floor.


Yeah, being too proactive with counters basically nullifies illusions as a valid choice of action. Why would you try to identify something as a spell if you believe it's real? If anything, the first spellcraft check should be to identify what you made a saving throw on. Even if someone tells you it's an illusion, you might just believe that they were fooled instead (hence you still need to roll even at a +4). The example for proof in the PHB really shows how conclusive the proof must be:



You fall through the floor or you spend ample time literally touching it.
A spellcraft check identifying a visible spell effect as an illusion is absolutely proof. And you would probably ask to roll spellcraft if, as in your example, something just appears and you think it might be a conjuration. You can make houserules that you don't get to roll at all, which is fair and reasonable. And also is to my original point: illusions are a mess.

[Jay R]

First of all, this is a DM judgment call. Different DMs will rule differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I would rule that the word "believe" is somewhat inaccurate in the case of your own illusions, and that you can choose to be affected by the full force of the spell, as you can with any other spell.

This is analogous to choosing to believe in Santa Claus while filling my kids' stockings myself. Yes, I know the complete truth, but I choose to accept the magic anyway.

[Darg]

A spellcraft check identifying a visible spell effect as an illusion is absolutely proof. And you would probably ask to roll spellcraft if, as in your example, something just appears and you think it might be a conjuration. You can make houserules that you don't get to roll at all, which is fair and reasonable. And also is to my original point: illusions are a mess.

That's simply where we differ. Illusions are only a mess when you let things arbitrarily bypass the belief in the illusions.


Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.

Illusions don't have to be crafted to function like a flash light where they simply turn on. A real illusion is created to make you believe it is real. If you believe something is real do you actually check to make sure your reality is false? If you did you'd have to be crazy paranoid. Just like how you don't have to be a charismatic person yourself, the game lets you represent your character's diplomatic skill with a skill check. The game also lets you represent your ability to craft your illusion with a saving throw. To bypass that with an arbitrary belief that you identified the spell being cast then the thing that shows up right after must be THE illusion instead of something else you might not yet identify is, well, fair I guess. You can play the way you want. Doesn't mean you aren't cheapening the experience you and your players get.

[sleepyphoenixx]

To bypass that with an arbitrary belief that you identified the spell being cast then the thing that shows up right after must be THE illusion instead of something else you might not yet identify is, well, fair I guess. You can play the way you want. Doesn't mean you aren't cheapening the experience you and your players get.
If someone casts an illusion in front of you and you identify it you know it's not real. That's just common sense.
There are enough options to hide your casting that this function of spellcraft (identifying a spell as it's being cast) shouldn't be an issue for anyone who's serious about illusions.
Plenty of illusion-focused classes and ACF's give you silent- and/or still spell for free to avoid it, on top of the other options available to every caster (sleight of hand, false theurgy, simply breaking LoS).

The problematic one is identifying a spell already in place, and that can be handled by requiring disbelief (or identifying its aura as illusion via detect magic/arcane sight, which i'd count as proof) first.
Which an illusion specialist can also get around via Insidious Magic or the gnome illusionist substitution, so a focused illusionist is very playable even at high levels.

Making your players use those options doesn't cheapen anything. You can still be an illusionist, you just have to invest feats and class levels into being good at it instead of being good at it by default.
It just puts a bit of a damper on wizards being able to do anything well without investment. I doubt i'm the only one who considers that a feature.

[Zanos]

That's simply where we differ. Illusions are only a mess when you let things arbitrarily bypass the belief in the illusions.
Most illusions control senses. Only patterns and phantasms actually affect creatures minds.


Illusions don't have to be crafted to function like a flash light where they simply turn on. A real illusion is created to make you believe it is real. If you believe something is real do you actually check to make sure your reality is false?
Someone casting a major image in the middle of combat isn't impressing into people's minds that there's an ancient dragon in the room. He is manipulating their senses to give them that impression. If that seems to not fit the circumstances, like for example, if I look at the dragon and notice an illusion aura, and roll spellcraft to confirm it's a major image, I'd say I have plenty of proof it is not, in fact, a real dragon.


If you did you'd have to be crazy paranoid.
People who count illusionists among their enemies should probably be quite paranoid, yes.


Just like how you don't have to be a charismatic person yourself, the game lets you represent your character's diplomatic skill with a skill check. The game also lets you represent your ability to craft your illusion with a saving throw. To bypass that with an arbitrary belief that you identified the spell being cast then the thing that shows up right after must be THE illusion instead of something else you might not yet identify is, well, fair I guess. You can play the way you want. Doesn't mean you aren't cheapening the experience you and your players get.
You are conflating identifying a cast spell with identifying a spell effect, which are separate uses of spellcraft. You should clarify which one you are discussing.

I think it cheapens the experience if you insist that a player doesn't know something is an illusion when something is pretty obviously an illusion. Keep in mind even if you fail a will save against an image after carefully inspecting it, that doesn't mean you aren't still suspicious of it. It just means you don't see through it with that roll. Nothing about the circumstances have changed to dismiss your suspicion. If a DM forces my character to treat the lion that appears out of thin air that isn't making any sound after I saw an enemy wizard cast silent image as a completely real lion because I haven't approached it and studied it thoroughly to get a will save, I'm going to start pelting him with dice.

[Vaern]

I'd say you can simply choose whether or not you're affected by your own illusions. You know the effect is an illusion and don't need to make a saving throw, but you're also generally allowed to forego a saving throw to willingly accept a spell's effect if you want to. If you weren't able to believe your own illusions, some spells may simply not function as intended.

[RandomPeasant]

It's not clear to me that you can identify that the spell effect of a major image is a major image without first disbelieving it. The spell effect is an illusionary dragon, and you don't know the dragon is illusionary until you've made your save. Spellcraft can tell you that the dragon you disbelieved was a major image rather than a silent image or a programmed image, but not necessarily that a dragon you see is a major image rather than a summoned dragon.

It's not even an entirely valid inference in the first place, as various shadow spells can create dragons which are perfectly capable of hurting you, but nevertheless have an illusion aura. I'd probably give you a bonus to your Will save if you saw that the dragon had an illusion aura, but not automatic disbelief. Indeed, the existence of Shadowcraft Mage means it's entirely possible to see someone cast major image and have the result be a dragon that is dangerous to you on even a successful Will save.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's not even an entirely valid inference in the first place, as various shadow spells can create dragons which are perfectly capable of hurting you, but nevertheless have an illusion aura. I'd probably give you a bonus to your Will save if you saw that the dragon had an illusion aura, but not automatic disbelief. Indeed, the existence of Shadowcraft Mage means it's entirely possible to see someone cast major image and have the result be a dragon that is dangerous to you on even a successful Will save.

The fact that shadow spells still hurt you if you disbelieve them doesn't really make an argument for not allowing auto-disbelief of identified illusion spells imo.
If anything it's an argument for it.

On the other hand knowing for a fact that something is an illusion is about as blatant as it gets to identifying something as "not real".
If that doesn't count as the necessary proof to not need a saving throw what does?

[RandomPeasant]

The fact that shadow spells still hurt you if you disbelieve them doesn't really make an argument for not allowing auto-disbelief of identified illusion spells imo.

Sure it does. Because you don't get to disbelieve stuff just because you're pretty sure it's not real. You get to disbelieve it when there's evidence it's not real, and because shadow spells have material effects, you get different evidence about them. Consider an Illusionist who uses a fake fireball on a crowd of real people. If that fireball is faked with shadow magic, those people may well actually die, and an observer would not get a save to know that the fireball was an illusion. Conversely, if it was faked with a regular Image spell, the people would under no circumstances take damage, and the observer would get a save. And because Shadowcraft Mage exists, simply knowing that the spell that was cast is major image rather than shadow evocation is insufficient to prompt a save.


On the other hand knowing for a fact that something is an illusion is about as blatant as it gets to identifying something as "not real".

Except that knowing something has an illusion aura doesn't tell you that. It tells you that an illusion is present, not what the illusion is. If you see someone with an illusion aura, how do you know if that's an illusionary person created by major image, a person under a disguise self effect, or a person benefitting from greater mirror image who simply happens to have no active images at the moment?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Except that knowing something has an illusion aura doesn't tell you that. It tells you that an illusion is present, not what the illusion is. If you see someone with an illusion aura, how do you know if that's an illusionary person created by major image, a person under a disguise self effect, or a person benefitting from greater mirror image who simply happens to have no active images at the moment?

I think we're talking about two different things here.
You seem to be refering to identifying a spell already in place (in which case i agree with you) but my comments are referring to auto-disbelieving when identifying an illusion as it's being cast.

For the former you're seeing a dragon (or whatever else) with an illusion aura.
Could be an illusory dragon, could be a dragon with disguise self to make his scales shinier, but you're not sure what it is or how it got there so no auto-disbelief on this.

For the latter it's seeing a dragon with an illusion aura appearing after your enemy casts Major Image, which you identified with spellcraft.
That one i'd say is blatant enough to constitute proof and lets you disbelieve without a save.

[Zanos]

Except that knowing something has an illusion aura doesn't tell you that. It tells you that an illusion is present, not what the illusion is. If you see someone with an illusion aura, how do you know if that's an illusionary person created by major image, a person under a disguise self effect, or a person benefitting from greater mirror image who simply happens to have no active images at the moment?
By rolling spellcraft. Check the skill.

[Darg]

Someone casting a major image in the middle of combat isn't impressing into people's minds that there's an ancient dragon in the room. He is manipulating their senses to give them that impression. If that seems to not fit the circumstances, like for example, if I look at the dragon and notice an illusion aura, and roll spellcraft to confirm it's a major image, I'd say I have plenty of proof it is not, in fact, a real dragon.

See, you have to have the ability to see the illusion aura to even think about making a check because it does manipulate the senses. Even then, I still don't think it's enough to outright disbelieve the illusion. Hell, even telling your allies it's an illusion isn't strong enough evidence to be classified as proof, hence the +4 to the roll.


You are conflating identifying a cast spell with identifying a spell effect, which are separate uses of spellcraft. You should clarify which one you are discussing.

I'm discussing both as they are a part of the spellcraft skill.


I think it cheapens the experience if you insist that a player doesn't know something is an illusion when something is pretty obviously an illusion. Keep in mind even if you fail a will save against an image after carefully inspecting it, that doesn't mean you aren't still suspicious of it. It just means you don't see through it with that roll. Nothing about the circumstances have changed to dismiss your suspicion. If a DM forces my character to treat the lion that appears out of thin air that isn't making any sound after I saw an enemy wizard cast silent image as a completely real lion because I haven't approached it and studied it thoroughly to get a will save, I'm going to start pelting him with dice.

Failing the will save does indeed mean that you aren't suspicious. The rules literally tell you that the character doesn't think anything is amiss. If you study an illusion over a pit and fail the saving throw your character isn't going to still be suspicious when they decide to walk on it.

It's not about whether they believe there is an illusion, it's about disbelieving the effect. If a dragon swoops into an opening with a major image spell making their scales look more glorious and you attempt the spellcraft check, you don't actually know what the illusion actually is. Is it the dragon itself or is it just an image superimposed over something else. Spellcraft itself does not go far enough in exposing the illusion.


On the other hand knowing for a fact that something is an illusion is about as blatant as it gets to identifying something as "not real".
If that doesn't count as the necessary proof to not need a saving throw what does?

I think the difference here is what constitutes a fact. The very "fact" that it COULD be something else makes calling it a fact possibly a false statement. Because it could be false, it can't be considered "proof," just evidence. Therefore you still need to roll to disbelieve. Just like being caught red handed doesn't actually mean that you murdered someone.

[Zanos]

See, you have to have the ability to see the illusion aura to even think about making a check because it does manipulate the senses. Even then, I still don't think it's enough to outright disbelieve the illusion. Hell, even telling your allies it's an illusion isn't strong enough evidence to be classified as proof, hence the +4 to the roll.
Are you suggesting that an image spell does not have an illusion aura to a viewer with detect magic or arcane sight?



I'm discussing both as they are a part of the spellcraft skill.
You need to differentiate because identifying a spell effect as being a result of a specific illusion spell is going to be a different conversation than having circumstantial evidence of the presence of an illusion by making a spellcraft check on a spell being cast.



Failing the will save does indeed mean that you aren't suspicious. The rules literally tell you that the character doesn't think anything is amiss. If you study an illusion over a pit and fail the saving throw your character isn't going to still be suspicious when they decide to walk on it.
It means you fail to notice something is amiss with the illusion, not the context. Do you really play it such that if a character notices a breeze through illusory wall, walks up to it an inspects it, and then fails their save, they think the breeze, which is NOT an illusion, coming through what appears to be a solid wall, is completely normal and just moves on?



It's not about whether they believe there is an illusion, it's about disbelieving the effect. If a dragon swoops into an opening with a major image spell making their scales look more glorious and you attempt the spellcraft check, you don't actually know what the illusion actually is. Is it the dragon itself or is it just an image superimposed over something else. Spellcraft itself does not go far enough in exposing the illusion.
So your argument here is that you haven't proved the dragon is an illusion, because it could be a real dragon that is casting major image on himself to look nicer? I don't agree with that reading at all, you don't have to prove what reality is to see through an illusion, you just have to know that an illusion isn't reality. You've proved there is an illusion there and you see through it, whether reality is a real and slightly less shiny dragon or nothing at all.



I think the difference here is what constitutes a fact. The very "fact" that it COULD be something else makes calling it a fact possibly a false statement. Because it could be false, it can't be considered "proof," just evidence. Therefore you still need to roll to disbelieve. Just like being caught red handed doesn't actually mean that you murdered someone.
The issue is the things that you've presented as "proof" are also just "evidence", because they have other explanations than the phenomena in question being an illusion. Which brings us back to what constitutes proof that something is an illusion? And I'm still going to say that looking at an image spell, noticing it has an illusion aura, and rolling spellcraft to successfully identify the thing you're looking at is an illusion is far stronger proof than anything you've presented.

[RandomPeasant]

By rolling spellcraft. Check the skill.

The interpretation you're suggesting would allow people to detect someone under the effect of invisibility simply by rolling a Spellcraft check. That does not strike me as a reasonable way for the skill to work.

[Zanos]

The interpretation you're suggesting would allow people to detect someone under the effect of invisibility simply by rolling a Spellcraft check. That does not strike me as a reasonable way for the skill to work.
You'd have to "see or detect the effects of the spell." Considering the primary function of invisibility is not to be seen while the primary function of an image spell is to be seen, I think there's a pretty critical difference there.

But in the case of a caster with arcane sight or detect magic, both of those spells defeat invisibility.

[RandomPeasant]

You'd have to "see or detect the effects of the spell." Considering the primary function of invisibility is not to be seen while the primary function of an image spell is to be seen, I think there's a pretty critical difference there.

But in the case of a caster with arcane sight or detect magic, both of those spells defeat invisibility.

The effect of invisibility is that you see empty space instead of a dude. If seeing a wall that's secretly not a wall is enough to count, I don't see why seeing empty space you wouldn't otherwise isn't.

[Zanos]

The effect of invisibility is that you see empty space instead of a dude. If seeing a wall that's secretly not a wall is enough to count, I don't see why seeing empty space you wouldn't otherwise isn't.
Because seeing something and not seeing something are literally opposites? I don't really see(heh) how that could be any more clear.

[RandomPeasant]

Because seeing something and not seeing something are literally opposites? I don't really see(heh) how that could be any more clear.

You don't have to see the spell, you have to see an "effect" of the spell. Which "you can see stuff on the other side of the invisible dude" would seem to be. Now, I agree that's kind of dumb. I wouldn't want the rules to work that way. But I don't see how they can not work that way if you're allowed to declare you are rolling Spellcraft to identify what spell a wall is when you have no evidence the wall is a spell in the first place. Spellcraft is not detect magic.

[Darg]

Are you suggesting that an image spell does not have an illusion aura to a viewer with detect magic or arcane sight?

I answered that question in the quote. "See, you have to have the ability to see the illusion aura to even think about making a check because it does manipulate the senses."


You need to differentiate because identifying a spell effect as being a result of a specific illusion spell is going to be a different conversation than having circumstantial evidence of the presence of an illusion by making a spellcraft check on a spell being cast.

We can say I didn't differentiate, but it wouldn't invalidate anything that I said.


It means you fail to notice something is amiss with the illusion, not the context. Do you really play it such that if a character notices a breeze through illusory wall, walks up to it an inspects it, and then fails their save, they think the breeze, which is NOT an illusion, coming through what appears to be a solid wall, is completely normal and just moves on?

Feeling a breeze coming from a wall, testing that belief that something is wrong, and failing (the saving throw) to notice that the breeze is actually coming through the wall is certainly a possibility. You're thinking with meta knowledge that a character doesn't have. A character won't notice that the air is coming through the actual wall unless they study it carefully. I've been in caves where air is forced through porous/cracked rock. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the wall is indeed real.


So your argument here is that you haven't proved the dragon is an illusion, because it could be a real dragon that is casting major image on himself to look nicer? I don't agree with that reading at all, you don't have to prove what reality is to see through an illusion, you just have to know that an illusion isn't reality. You've proved there is an illusion there and you see through it, whether reality is a real and slightly less shiny dragon or nothing at all.

The argument I'm making is that you don't even know what the illusion is to even disbelieve it. When you fall through a floor you know that the floor isn't real because you've identified it was the floor that was the illusion. When you spend a few rounds poking the illusion you identify that the floor is the illusion. Identifying the school of an aura doesn't automatically allow you to disbelieve any disbelievable spell on the target either.


The issue is the things that you've presented as "proof" are also just "evidence", because they have other explanations than the phenomena in question being an illusion. Which brings us back to what constitutes proof that something is an illusion? And I'm still going to say that looking at an image spell, noticing it has an illusion aura, and rolling spellcraft to successfully identify the thing you're looking at is an illusion is far stronger proof than anything you've presented.

I just use the examples of severity in the PHB.


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 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

At best, spellcraft would qualify as the first as you are studying the target. However, spellcraft does not give you permission to identify the extent or what exactly is part of the illusion. Just the name of the spell of the effect you can see. You can choose to disbelieve what ever you want, that doesn't give you permission to bypass game mechanics. The meaning of "proof" requires evidence that can't lead to an untruth. As I mentioned in the other post, being caught red handed does not prove guilt. That you believe it does doesn't make it true.

[Jack_Simth]

Illusions are a pretty hotly debated topic. Yep, and
ask your DM because the books don't actually say what is considered to be "proof."Yep.

To the OP:
You'll get various folks' readings of what they believe the correct answer to be here. The only one that truly matters for your use case (your table) is that of the DM in question. If you are the DM in question... it's hotly debated. Pick an answer for your game, note it down so you'll give consistent enough answers for your players, and move on.

[Zanos]

I answered that question in the quote. "See, you have to have the ability to see the illusion aura to even think about making a check because it does manipulate the senses.
Okay, so we're not arguing about whether the auras are visible at all, at least.


Feeling a breeze coming from a wall, testing that belief that something is wrong, and failing (the saving throw) to notice that the breeze is actually coming through the wall is certainly a possibility.
Sure, but it doesn't mean that you suddenly think the breeze is normal and cease investigating.


You're thinking with meta knowledge that a character doesn't have.
What meta knowledge? I am walking down a dungeon hallway. A feel wind to my right. I see a wall. I inspect the wall and fail my will save. I don't think anything is unusual with the wall. But I still felt a suspicious breeze. Why would I stop investigating?


A character won't notice that the air is coming through the actual wall unless they study it carefully. I've been in caves where air is forced through porous/cracked rock. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the wall is indeed real.
I didn't say it was outside the realm of possibility. I just said that most characters would probably still would still think something was amiss with the situation. Observed facts are not lining up with the way one knows reality operates. We can use a more extreme example if you want. Say a character makes a knowledge(dungeoneering) check and knows that it's not normal for this type of area to have a breeze. Or say, a character choosing to ignore a dragon that flies in through a window immediately after major image has been cast and are told as such by their wizard ally. My point is only that illusions aren't mind control, they fool senses, not reason. If you allow a failed disbelief save to remove all ability to reason you're giving illusions more power than they actually have. That's always been the rub with illusions; you don't get to dictate how NPCs(or players, from the other side of the screen) will react to them. A fighter is free to make the choice to ignore a dragon that his wizard buddy tells him is an illusion, even if he fails the save with a +4 bonus against it. He is not forced to behave as though the dragon is real.


The argument I'm making is that you don't even know what the illusion is to even disbelieve it. When you fall through a floor you know that the floor isn't real because you've identified it was the floor that was the illusion. When you spend a few rounds poking the illusion you identify that the floor is the illusion.
That's not how it works. You learn, in the process of making the check, what the illusion is. You don't start by knowing what the illusion is and then roll to disbelieve it, that would defeat the point. Spellcraft is just substituting for the step of carefully studying the illusion, because you identify the magic bits as being an illusion.



I just use the examples of severity in the PHB.

At best, spellcraft would qualify as the first as you are studying the target. However, spellcraft does not give you permission to identify the extent or what exactly is part of the illusion. Just the name of the spell of the effect you can see. You can choose to disbelieve what ever you want, that doesn't give you permission to bypass game mechanics. The meaning of "proof" requires evidence that can't lead to an untruth. As I mentioned in the other post, being caught red handed does not prove guilt. That you believe it does doesn't make it true.
There are reasons you could fall through a floor that aren't related to illusions. This "proof" is less conclusive than a successful spellcraft check. The books are pretty clearly establishing that the standard of proof is not as high as you're suggesting.

[Darg]

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you suddenly think the breeze is normal and cease investigating.


What meta knowledge? I am walking down a dungeon hallway. A feel wind to my right. I see a wall. I inspect the wall and fail my will save. I don't think anything is unusual with the wall. But I still felt a suspicious breeze. Why would I stop investigating?

The character would believe the wall is real. If you weren't spending the time and effort to really investigate, "a few rounds poking at the same illusion," then the character isn't curious enough to actually discover the source of the air flow. So yes, in that reality the character would continue passing by.


I didn't say it was outside the realm of possibility. I just said that most characters would probably still would still think something was amiss with the situation. Observed facts are not lining up with the way one knows reality operates. We can use a more extreme example if you want. Say a character makes a knowledge(dungeoneering) check and knows that it's not normal for this type of area to have a breeze. Or say, a character choosing to ignore a dragon that flies in through a window immediately after major image has been cast and are told as such by their wizard ally. My point is only that illusions aren't mind control, they fool senses, not reason. If you allow a failed disbelief save to remove all ability to reason you're giving illusions more power than they actually have. That's always been the rub with illusions; you don't get to dictate how NPCs(or players, from the other side of the screen) will react to them. A fighter is free to make the choice to ignore a dragon that his wizard buddy tells him is an illusion, even if he fails the save with a +4 bonus against it. He is not forced to behave as though the dragon is real.

I mean sure. You can tell the character that anything is an illusion even if it isn't an illusion. That doesn't mean the fighter actually disbelieves the illusion, they just trust the other character more than their own senses. That still doesn't prove that an illusion is having the effect you think it is.


That's not how it works. You learn, in the process of making the check, what the illusion is. You don't start by knowing what the illusion is and then roll to disbelieve it, that would defeat the point. Spellcraft is just substituting for the step of carefully studying the illusion, because you identify the magic bits as being an illusion.

It just let's you identify the spell. It says nothing about any other information pertaining to the spell, "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," or substituting any part of making a saving throw. I mean, if you want to houserule it otherwise you can.


There are reasons you could fall through a floor that aren't related to illusions. This "proof" is less conclusive than a successful spellcraft check. The books are pretty clearly establishing that the standard of proof is not as high as you're suggesting.

The book only says that it's enough proof to avoid a saving throw because you have actually interacted with the illusion. And sure, it's less conclusive if you believe that a spellcraft check can tell you all the details of an active spell effect. Again, spellcraft does not give you permission to do so by RAW.