An illusion can kill you if you believe it to be real.

[Bharg]

After playing a human beguiler or actually a swashbuckling human beguiler myself for some time I found the rules of the main illusion spells silent, minor and major image offer a lot of freedom. All the rules say is that the spell creates the visual image of object, creature or force visualized by you that you can move within the limits of the effects area. The spell doesn't expire as long as you concentrate. Later versions add effects as sound, smell and temperature. You can even let it react appropriately to other creatures.
The only things that are missing are a sense of tactility or resistance and weight.

Would you as a DM consider asking your player for a skill check in your game to determine how real the illusion appears to be - instead of relying solely on the disbelief will save?

Would a masterwork illusion actually be able to deal damage to a non-suspecting victim without drawing material of energy from the plane of shadows unlike the shadow conjuration and evocations spells?

Did you use these spells in a very special and interesting way in one of your game sessions?

[Ernir]

Would you as a DM consider asking your player for a skill check in your game to determine how real the illusion appears to be - instead of relying solely on the disbelief will save?

Sure. I'd allow a DC 80 Spot check to see through the thing.

Would a masterwork illusion actually be able to deal damage to a non-suspecting victim without drawing material of energy from the plane of shadows unlike the shadow conjuration and evocations spells?

Never.

Unless you can use the illusions to convince people to do stuff like walk into fires, jump off a cliff, or stab their friends, non-Shadow illusions don't deal damage at my table.

[Doc Roc]

I'm with Ernir on both points here, actually.

[Ferrin]

The moment an illusion spell does that without having the shadow descriptor it becomes an evocation if you ask me.

[Bharg]

So basically all illusions are perfect as long as there is no reason to disbelief them?

[nedz]

So basically all illusions are perfect as long as there is no reason to disbelief them?

Yep.

I've often thought that Illusions should require a level of art skills in some way; but they don't: any arcanist is a perfect 3D camera/renderer.

I have seen players screw them up though.

[Chrono22]

Still, it seems that a expert in dungeoneering should be able to tell the difference between a real roper and one rendered by a spellcaster who has only heard vague descriptions of it.

[JaxGaret]

So basically all illusions are perfect as long as there is no reason to disbelief them?

Yes, exactly. Until the character starts interacting with it, or the illusion starts interacting with other things in a manner that might spoil the illusion, the character has no way to know that it is an illusion, except for the aforementioned DC 80 Spot check.

Still, it seems that a expert in dungeoneering should be able to tell the difference between a real roper and one rendered by a spellcaster who has only heard vague descriptions of it.

That would be a reason to disbelieve in it, thus for that reason you would get the Will save. If you fail the Will save, it just looks like a roper acting weirdly.

[Cuaqchi]

Depends strictly by 3.X rules the illusions can't hurt you. However if you go back a couple generations the caster need only concentrate and a strong enough illusion can 'harm' someone. This harm however is only in their head so if the image is defeated before they fall all 'damage' suffered disappears, and if they fall before 'killing' it then they have to test against system shock (Fort Save?) or die as their mind falls apart.

The other option is to use very high level illusions (Viel, Programmed Illusion, etc.) to conceal dangerous terrain and wait for the enemy to stumble into the 'non-existant' trap. By the time they discover it they have interacted to the point they are submerged/in contact and suffering such effects. I almost TPKed a party with an illusion of lowering water levels until one of the players figured that the Aboleth wouldn't hurt his own chances for survival.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I agree with the majority non shadow illusions don't hurt so you have to make sure nobody touches it. For this reason making monsters is generally a bad idea unless your pretty damned sure your targets will flee. Idealy you want to set up situations where touching it means they've already lost like covering a pit or a false wall or treasure hoard drawing them into a dangerous room or just away from where you don't want them to be.

Contrary to that my all time favorite illusion moment was a major image (I think is that the one that has thermal and smell aspects?) of a 40 ft tall fire elemental. It scared away a group of trolls that were well over our ECL.

Also illusions shouldn't require a skill check to create because it takes an image you create in your mind. The only time that an illusion is easier to see through is if you make a bad illusion like a pink dragon or a pool of lava in a forest. Of course in some games nothing is unbelievable.

One more piece of advice. To paraphrase a great man because I lost my old dragon magazines.

"Don't go advertising your proffesion 'Guild of Illusionists' I bet you have trouble getting merchant's to accept your coin. How about geting dates for social functions? No woman wants to kiss a guy who may turn into a from if he ceases to concentrate."

Ok one more.

"Think small, there's nothing worse than having your enemies disbeleave a elaborate illusion. You may as well hold a sign that says 'Illusionist, unarmored and mostly harmless'."

[AslanCross]

As mentioned above, the only time PCs are entitled to will saves against the illusions is if they interact with the illusion. What "interaction" is can be debatable.

Most illusions (figments and glamers) would most definitely not be able to harm the PCs, though. That's what shadow and phantasm illusions are for.

[Riffington]

Would you as a DM consider asking your player for a skill check in your game to determine how real the illusion appears to be - instead of relying solely on the disbelief will save?

Well, let me ask you: if you see a picture of a dog, and it looks like a doberman except the tail is more like a collie's: do you assume that it's a mutt or that it's a photoshop?

If the creator of an illusion knows very little about the subject, an observer without such a disadvantage may be told "this one is a bit odd". That may then in turn lead to close examination, which in turn may lead to a save.

[Hendel]

Illusions have been plagued with this problem and have troubled DM's and players alike since 1st edition.

Before I played my last 3.5 Illusionist, I sat down with thte DM and we read over Rules of the Game (here) on the WotC website concerning them. It was helpful for both of to see what they could and could not do in 3.5.

Other than that I would agree with most of what has been said. Only illusions with the Shadow descriptor become real and my DM and I agreed that I could only make illusions of things that I have seen, otherwise, my dragon or beholder might look awfully different than they really do.

[Defiant]

How about the DM assigning circumstance modifiers to the will save based on the quality of the illusion?

[Hobs]

Other than that I would agree with most of what has been said. Only illusions with the Shadow descriptor become real and my DM and I agreed that I could only make illusions of things that I have seen, otherwise, my dragon or beholder might look awfully different than they really do.

but i agree that seeing something is not enough to recreate it. that takes skill and that is why good artists are rare.

our brains are notoriously unreliable. i've seen a tiger before, but i'd never be able to tell you what the proper proportions are, how long the tail should be how far apart the eyes, etc. even good artists work from photographs or models.

[Hendel]

but i agree that seeing something is not enough to recreate it. that takes skill and that is why good artists are rare.

our brains are notoriously unreliable. i've seen a tiger before, but i'd never be able to tell you what the proper proportions are, how long the tail should be how far apart the eyes, etc. even good artists work from photographs or models.

I agree 100%, but we needed a simple tool to determine yes for this and no for that within the realms of a fantasy world where spell casting might sometimes defy our normal concepts of what a brain and or imagination can or cannot do. Basically it was the idea that my illusion could reproduce the image I saw even if I could not do the same on paper. If I never saw it, I would just have to rely on how my mother described it to me at bedtime, etc.

[Lysander]

Still, it seems that a expert in dungeoneering should be able to tell the difference between a real roper and one rendered by a spellcaster who has only heard vague descriptions of it.

Illusion spells create "visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you." So if you were creating something you had never seen yourself, the image could be very inaccurate. Just imagine describing an elephant to someone who had never seen one before.

[Lev]

Check out Shadowcraft Mage in Races of Stone (adds dmg to illusion spells), and I think there's another class that weaves "a thread of something" into their illusions to make them deadly, I forget where and what exactly it's called and it's not in any of my books, good luck!

[Ra-Thoth]

In Rolemaster, we had a player actually cast an Illusion with "Vision" and "Feel" components. He was in a pit and conjured a ladder to climb out of it, claiming that if you want to believe, you can believe.

We argued for an hour or so (which wasn't really bad for the atmosphere - that player was the kind that would use a Rolemaster level 1 spell to kill enemies - with "Boil Liquid" which he claimed could of course be used as an attack spell and "boil blood").

Ah the good old times of rulesbending.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm with Ernir on both points here, actually.

Tru dat. Only in the Matrix can an illusion harm you.

[Ferrin]

Tru dat. Only in the Matrix can an illusion harm you.

Only because every effect is automaticly [Mind-Effecting] as well.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'd come up with some houserules for a skill 'Illusion weaving', which Illusionists are about the only class with the skill on their list (although I'd give it to Beguilers as well). Basically, I put in a contested Spot vs Illusion Weaving check to determine if the individual in question could make a Will save to disbelieve based on it's appearance. They'd get another when they physically interact with it, of course.

If the spotter in question has a skill relevant to the illusion at hand (a Knowledge skill, for example, which can be used to identify what the illusion is supposed to be... so Knowledge (Nature) for an Animal, etc...), they would get to use that skill instead of Spot, if it is higher, or gain a synergy bonus equal to 1/5th the number of *RANKS* otherwise.

[Bharg]

Yep.

I've often thought that Illusions should require a level of art skills in some way; but they don't: any arcanist is a perfect 3D camera/renderer.

I have seen players screw them up though.

That is what I thought, as well, though the rules tell different. A deception, perform (illusion), spellcraft or a own illusion skill check would probably work fine in combination with:

How about the DM assigning circumstance modifiers to the will save based on the quality of the illusion?

Depends strictly by 3.X rules the illusions can't hurt you. However if you go back a couple generations the caster need only concentrate and a strong enough illusion can 'harm' someone. This harm however is only in their head so if the image is defeated before they fall all 'damage' suffered disappears, and if they fall before 'killing' it then they have to test against system shock (Fort Save?) or die as their mind falls apart.

The other option is to use very high level illusions (Viel, Programmed Illusion, etc.) to conceal dangerous terrain and wait for the enemy to stumble into the 'non-existant' trap. By the time they discover it they have interacted to the point they are submerged/in contact and suffering such effects. I almost TPKed a party with an illusion of lowering water levels until one of the players figured that the Aboleth wouldn't hurt his own chances for survival.

I like that version a lot, but what edition or system are you talking about?

Well, let me ask you: if you see a picture of a dog, and it looks like a doberman except the tail is more like a collie's: do you assume that it's a mutt or that it's a photoshop?

If the creator of an illusion knows very little about the subject, an observer without such a disadvantage may be told "this one is a bit odd". That may then in turn lead to close examination, which in turn may lead to a save.

I would probably think it is a mutt, but pictures and illusions are two totally different things. Even if a character saw a white unicorn dragon with red lip stick and black eyeliner dancing the Troika ALONE he probably wouldn't believe it... But would you grant that player a save check as long as he doesn't say that his character is determined that what he is seeing is not only totally obscure and frightening, but also an illusion?

Only because every effect is automaticly [Mind-Effecting] as well.

Illusions that would be able to effect the minds of the ones who enter the area of effect like in the way Cuaqchi described would be awesome, but as far as I know there are not even epic spells that actually do that. Letting the victim not only see but feel how his illusionary injuries hurt.


Major image also includes thermal illusion? Is that a kind of mind effecting effect making you feel temperature or is it actually only thermal imaging to fool creatures with thermal sight like the drow in some novels that are vaguely related to the topic of this thread? I wouldn't like to touch illusionary fire then...

Coul you use silent, minor and major image to emulate other spells like conjurations? Non caster probably wouldn't identify them anyway.

I'd come up with some houserules for a skill 'Illusion weaving', which Illusionists are about the only class with the skill on their list (although I'd give it to Beguilers as well). Basically, I put in a contested Spot vs Illusion Weaving check to determine if the individual in question could make a Will save to disbelieve based on it's appearance. They'd get another when they physically interact with it, of course.

If the spotter in question has a skill relevant to the illusion at hand (a Knowledge skill, for example, which can be used to identify what the illusion is supposed to be... so Knowledge (Nature) for an Animal, etc...), they would get to use that skill instead of Spot, if it is higher, or gain a synergy bonus equal to 1/5th the number of *RANKS* otherwise.

With synergy bonuses for the illusionist if he also has the corresponding knowledge, too?

[Yuki Akuma]

Illusions create an image you have in your mind. If we could do that, we'd have much more artists. The hard part is getting the image out of your head and onto paper, not imagining the image in the first place.

Figments produce false sensory input. Even if you create burning heat, the target won't take real damage - the heat's not real.

Glamers produce actual sensory qualities, but not real substances.

Patterns are mind-affecting figments, basically. They can theoretically deal damage, with a Will save to negate the damage.

Phantasms are like Patterns except only the target can see it - Patterns make actual images, Phantasms are all in their head.

Shadows create quasi-real effects that can, naturally, deal actual damage.

[Riffington]

I would probably think it is a mutt, but pictures and illusions are two totally different things.

How are they different? In one, your character sees something, knows intellectually that some percentage of what she sees is really an illusion, notices that something isn't quite normal about what she is seeing, but may not necessarily think that the thing she is seeing is an illusion.
In the other, you see a picture, know intellectually that some percentage of pictures are photoshopped, notice that something isn't quite normal about what you are seeing, but may not necessarily think that the thing you are seeing is a photoshop.
The analogy is necessary because you don't know intellectually that some 3-d objects you see are illusions, because you believe intellectually that magic doesn't exist on Earth.

Even if a character saw a white unicorn dragon with red lip stick and black eyeliner dancing the Troika ALONE he probably wouldn't believe it... But would you grant that player a save check as long as he doesn't say that his character is determined that what he is seeing is not only totally obscure and frightening, but also an illusion?

If he is just watching, and doesn't say it's an illusion, he gets no save.
If he examines it super carefully or interacts with it, he gets one. If it is real, careful examination or interaction may have some risks associated.

[Bharg]

How are they different? In one, your character sees something, knows intellectually that some percentage of what she sees is really an illusion, notices that something isn't quite normal about what she is seeing, but may not necessarily think that the thing she is seeing is an illusion.
In the other, you see a picture, know intellectually that some percentage of pictures are photoshopped, notice that something isn't quite normal about what you are seeing, but may not necessarily think that the thing you are seeing is a photoshop.
The analogy is necessary because you don't know intellectually that some 3-d objects you see are illusions, because you believe intellectually that magic doesn't exist on Earth.
[...]

Even in a fantasy world seeing still means believing. You would really need to lose track of reality if you automatically want to suspect that something is an illusion and not real.

[Heliomance]

Careful, lest you fall into this.

[Cuaqchi]

The method I mentioned is what AD&D did. In my own games at home I have done the same, and as a result my players are always cautious around wizards because they don't know which enemies are real or not.

[AstralFire]

Paranoid Skeptifrantic [Spelltouched]
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eleven times, shame on me. Seriously, the shadows are all wrong.
Prerequisites: Must not be able to cast illusion spells.
Benefit: As an immediate action, you may declare that you disbelieve a spell that is about to take effect on you. If the spell is actually an illusion, then you automatically succeed on your will save, and spells such as Shadow Evocation will not have a partial effect on you; they will just fail outright. If the spell is not an illusion, you fail your saves (if any) against it.

[Riffington]

Even in a fantasy world seeing still means believing. You would really need to lose track of reality if you automatically want to suspect that something is an illusion and not real.

The same is true in the real world.
You would really need to lose track of reality if you automatically want to suspect that every picture is a photoshop and not real.