Live or Memorex?

[Abstruse]

Well, "reality" or "illusion", really.

Let's say you have an illusionist who hasn't banned conjuration, for some reason or another. However, his illusion-conjurations have been seen through by a particular opponent, and so instead he decides to pop out a real conjuration instead. If the opponent looks at this new manifestation and says "I attempt to disbelieve", what happens when the real conjuration tries to reach out and thwacks him upside the head?

Would the opponent be considered flat-footed? What about if they attempt to disbelieve a spell they'd normally get a save against (Reflex or Fortitude) but decide to try a Will save against? Would they get the other save at all?

[Kyeudo]

Since making the Will save takes no time, he finds it still seems real after trying to disbelieve it. Thus, he must choose to either believe he made his save and this is real, or that hes still facing an illusion that is stronger than those last.

If he continues to act as if its an illusion, he may attempt to enter its space, or walk by it and thus provoke attacks of oppourtunity.

If they make Will saves to disbelieve against spells that require other saves, they still get the other save.

[tainsouvra]

Disbelief in this edition is more of a "cautious analysis" than the old "deny the reality of"...you don't have to just stand there and take it to disbelieve now.

I would add, however, that disbelieving now requires interacting with or carefully studying the possible illusion. If the character is stating "I attempt to disbelieve", then that should take up at least a standard action while he looks for some sort of flaw in the possible illusion. Allow him to roll the saving throw, but tell him "you fail to notice anything is amiss" regardless of the result, as it is not an illusion and thus there is nothing amiss.

Edit:
Just to clarify, if it was an illusion and it struck him in combat, he would get an automatic and no-action saving throw due to the interaction. It's only because he is attempting to study the conjured creature/spell without directly interacting with it that it should take a moment of his time.

[Beren One-Hand]

What about Evocations?

You're flinging around shadow fireballs, and you're fed up with the guys just laughing it off - so you shoot 'em with a real one.

They don't get a will save until they interact with it, so if they state they are choosing to disbelieve shouldn't they be infact giving up their Ref save?

[Dhavaer]

What about Evocations?

You're flinging around shadow fireballs, and you're fed up with the guys just laughing it off - so you shoot 'em with a real one.

They don't get a will save until they interact with it, so if they state they are choosing to disbelieve shouldn't they be infact giving up their Ref save?

They get a reflex save against the Shadow fireballs as well, so no.

[tainsouvra]

They don't get a will save until they interact with it, so if they state they are choosing to disbelieve shouldn't they be infact giving up their Ref save?

No, for two reasons. If you interact with an illusion, you don't have to say you disbelieve, you get the disbelief check automatically as a non-action--there is no real "choosing to disbelieve" in this edition. Second, Shadow Evocation allows the simulated spell's normal save in addition to the initial Will save, so where do you get the idea that you don't get both?

Disbelief isn't the same way it was in previous editions, it's not about denying the reality of what you see, it's noticing something is amiss during an interaction.

[Ulzgoroth]

...there is no 'state that you are choosing to disbelieve' in D&D 3.5. If you take a fireball, you get a reflex save at no cost of any kind. If you take a shadow fireball, you get a will save to reduce its effect and then a reflex save as normal for a fireball, still with no cost of any kind.

Choosing to disbelieve could become relevant if, for instance, you were being flanked by an creature you think is illusionary, but haven't saved against. But the rules don't provide any mechanics for what happens if you get attacked by something you're assuming isn't real...

[tainsouvra]

Choosing to disbelieve could become relevant if, for instance, you were being flanked by an creature you think is illusionary, but haven't saved against. But the rules don't provide any mechanics for what happens if you get attacked by something you're assuming isn't real...

As far as the character goes, there isn't really such a thing as "assuming it isn't real"--if you make your will save, you find something amiss and know it is an illusion; if you fail your will save, you find nothing amiss and believe it to be real until someone else succeeds and communicates that it is an illusion (which only allows a second check at +4, by the way).

If the player knows something is an illusion, but the character fails its save, "assuming it isn't real" is simply metagaming and the DM should cast Rocks Fall.

[Ulzgoroth]

For figments especially, that's nonsense. Characters are aware of magic. It's entirely possible for you to know you're dealing with someone who uses illusions, so when you're attacked by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, it's very probably not really there no matter how convincing it seems.

As a result, you refuse to let the 'dragon' herd you around or distract you from enemies you do expect to be able to hurt you. This isn't player metagaming, this is the character saying "I see it, I feel it, but I know it can't be real, I'm going to do my best to disregard it." This is perfectly reasonable thinking for anyone with the slightest familiarity with arcane magic.

The interesting question comes up when you misjudged your opponent, and that unlikely but regrettably real dragon gets tired of trying to chase you away unharmed and bites your idiot head off. What's the consequence of your refusing to acknowledge its presence? (Note that mechanically speaking, you can't be flanked by an illusionary enemy, but I'd assume that a convincing illusion of someone threatening you would have the same effect as someone really threatening you).

[kjones]

Disbelief in this edition is more of a "cautious analysis" than the old "deny the reality of"...you don't have to just stand there and take it to disbelieve now.

I would add, however, that disbelieving now requires interacting with or carefully studying the possible illusion. If the character is stating "I attempt to disbelieve", then that should take up at least a standard action while he looks for some sort of flaw in the possible illusion. Allow him to roll the saving throw, but tell him "you fail to notice anything is amiss" regardless of the result, as it is not an illusion and thus there is nothing amiss.

Edit:
Just to clarify, if it was an illusion and it struck him in combat, he would get an automatic and no-action saving throw due to the interaction. It's only because he is attempting to study the conjured creature/spell without directly interacting with it that it should take a moment of his time.

Just wanted to comment on this: In my games, disbelief is a full-round action, because whenever I introduce a single illusion spell into the game, my players go around disbelieving every rock, tree, and person they meet for weeks.

[tainsouvra]

For figments especially, that's nonsense. Characters are aware of magic. It's entirely possible for you to know you're dealing with someone who uses illusions, so when you're attacked by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, it's very probably not really there no matter how convincing it seems.

As a result, you refuse to let the 'dragon' herd you around or distract you from enemies you do expect to be able to hurt you. This isn't player metagaming, this is the character saying "I see it, I feel it, but I know it can't be real, I'm going to do my best to disregard it." This is perfectly reasonable thinking for anyone with the slightest familiarity with arcane magic.

I believe you are misunderstanding the rules. If there is a clear and obvious reason why an illusion shouldn't be true, then disbelief is automatic, no save is required. There isn't some "assuming it isn't real" rule, disbelief in these situations is automatically successful. If there is no clear or obvious reason, you get a save for inspection/interaction, or for someone communicating the illusion to you.

That's pretty much it. If you weren't automatically successful, your character didn't have proof it was an illusion. If you fail your save, he couldn't find anything amiss. If your character doesn't have proof that it's an illusion and doesn't notice anything amiss, he believes the illusion.

The interesting question comes up when you misjudged your opponent, and that unlikely but regrettably real dragon gets tired of trying to chase you away unharmed and bites your idiot head off. What's the consequence of your refusing to acknowledge its presence?

The same as an attack by any other opponent of which you are not aware, you're flatfooted when it strikes you.


The illusion/disbelief rules in this edition are very simplistic...
If you know for a fact something is an illusion, you are considered to have automatically disbelieved.
If you interact with or inspect an illusion, you get a save to disbelieve.
If someone informs you of an illusion, you get a +4 save to disbelieve.
If you don't know for a fact that something is an illusion, you haven't interacted with it, you haven't inspected it, and nobody has informed you that it is an illusion, you believe.
...anything beyond that is either a throwback to previous editions, and thus not actually applicable, or is metagaming, and rocks should fall.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Just wanted to comment on this: In my games, disbelief is a full-round action, because whenever I introduce a single illusion spell into the game, my players go around disbelieving every rock, tree, and person they meet for weeks.

Oh, come on... do you really expect us to believe that?

[tainsouvra]

Just wanted to comment on this: In my games, disbelief is a full-round action, because whenever I introduce a single illusion spell into the game, my players go around disbelieving every rock, tree, and person they meet for weeks.

That's a fair interpretation, actually. If they aren't interacting with the rock/tree/person, they have to stop to inspect it in order to get a disbelief saving throw, per the rules.

Also, your players sound OCD, good luck with that

[Ulzgoroth]

I believe you are misunderstanding the rules. If there is a clear and obvious reason why an illusion shouldn't be true, then disbelief is automatic, no save is required. There isn't some "assuming it isn't real" rule, disbelief in these situations is automatically successful. If there is no clear or obvious reason, you get a save for inspection/interaction, or for someone communicating the illusion to you.

No, it wouldn't. Sticking your hand through the 'dragon' would automatically defeat the illusion. Being intellectually confident that there's no such dragon present doesn't. It isn't proof that you are getting false information from your senses, it's a reason to distrust that information. That doesn't allow you to be sure of anything, or to defeat the illusion. It does allow you to try to defeat the illusion, which you wouldn't do if you had no idea it might be one.

That's pretty much it. If you weren't automatically successful, your character didn't have proof it was an illusion. If you fail your save, he couldn't find anything amiss. If your character doesn't have proof that it's an illusion and doesn't notice anything amiss, he believes the illusion. The same as an attack by any other opponent of which you are not aware, you're flatfooted when it strikes you.

Figments and Glamers are not mind affecting. They are something very like magical holograms. Saving against a figment means discerning that your senses are reporting misinformation, and thus seeing through the false image (literally, even). But I can choose to assume that a table doesn't actually exist, if I want to. This is an intellectual decision that no spell can interfere with without being mind effecting. There being no illusionists around in the real world, that I'm aware of, I'm almost certainly wrong, as I will discover if I try to walk through the table I insist is not real.

Consider, please...if what you say is true, no person with a basic understanding of magic could ever say 'do you think we're seeing illusions?'. Because if they were you assert they aren't allowed to think of the possibility, and if they weren't they would have thought of the possibility, realized that thought proves the reality of whatever they're looking at, and dropped the question. I submit that this is neither RAW nor remotely logical.

[tainsouvra]

No, it wouldn't. Sticking your hand through the 'dragon' would automatically defeat the illusion. Being intellectually confident that there's no such dragon present doesn't. It isn't proof that you are getting false information from your senses, it's a reason to distrust that information. That doesn't allow you to be sure of anything, or to defeat the illusion. It does allow you to try to defeat the illusion, which you wouldn't do if you had no idea it might be one.

Allow me to requote the relevant portion for clarity...

If there is no clear or obvious reason, you get a save for inspection/interaction, or for someone communicating the illusion to you.

That's pretty much it. If you weren't automatically successful, your character didn't have proof it was an illusion. If you fail your save, he couldn't find anything amiss. If your character doesn't have proof that it's an illusion and doesn't notice anything amiss, he believes the illusion.

Trying to defeat the illusion allows a save. Failing that save means your character believes the illusion, regardless of your out-of-character knowledge that he shouldn't have believed it.

That's all the rules permit you. If you fail to disbelieve, you believe.

I can choose to assume that a table doesn't actually exist, if I want to. This is an intellectual decision that no spell can interfere with without being mind effecting.

That decision allows you to inspect it and try a saving throw. If you fail that save, the illusion was too convincing, and your mind accepts what your senses are giving you.

That's all the rules permit you. If you fail your save, your character finds nothing at all that is amiss, he is fooled.

Consider, please...if what you say is true, no person with a basic understanding of magic could ever say 'do you think we're seeing illusions?'. Because if they were you assert they aren't allowed to think of the possibility, and if they weren't they would have thought of the possibility, realized that thought proves the reality of whatever they're looking at, and dropped the question. I submit that this is neither RAW nor remotely logical.

That is not what I am saying. Why do you think the rules allow you a saving throw if you stop to inspect something that seems unusual to determine if it is an illusion? Because your character is thinking to himself "am I seeing an illusion?", of course--but if he fails his saving throw, his inspection has revealed nothing unusual, and his answer is "nope, it wasn't an illusion".

Let me put it this way...
The save is for disbelief--if you fail your save, your character believes regardless of your out-of-character knowledge.

[Arbitrarity]

I've disbelieved real things, in real life even. You just act as if they're not there. If you're a wizard, and you see another wizard, and he waves his hands, and casts fireball at you, then waves his hands, and summons a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon, and you know what that is, then I'm betting I could rationalize not believing it's there, simply by virtue of there being NO FREAKIN WAY any arcane caster would use a fireball, and seeing that didn't work, using an really epic spell to summon a mighty dragon. It makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules that prevents me from claiming that my wizard rationally disbelieves the existence of the dragon, even if all sensory input says otherwise.

Until he gets eaten.

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Nothing here prevents rational disbelief by logic, by experience, or otherwise. I may not notice anything wrong with the illusory dragon, but that doesn't mean I can't say "My character, by his knowledge that only the mightiest of wizards could summon such a fell beast, rationally ignores the beast, as it is utterly illogical for a wizard to use such a spell as fireball, and follow that with a spell of epic proportions and might. Should such a wizard stand before us now, we would already have perished."

I'm not an NPC. I'm not metagaming. It's perfectly rational, and in character. I have no proof, nor do I notice anything wrong. What I have is an entirely convincing argument.

[tainsouvra]

An entirely convincing argument should constitute proof...that's the meaning of the word, even: evidence sufficient to establish or produce belief in truth. If you have a completely convincing argument, you automatically disbelieve. If you don't have a completely convincing argument, it's time to make a save--and if you fail that save, you believe. Period. That's just how illusions work in this edition, there is no "I don't have evidence it's an illusion but I don't want to believe anyway" anymore.

There is nothing in the rules that prevents me from claiming that my wizard rationally disbelieves the existence of the dragon, even if all sensory input says otherwise.

If we're relying on the "nothing says I can't" idea, then there's nothing in the rules that prevents me from claiming that my wizard dodges the Fireball. I mean, sure it subverts the whole reflex saving throw mechanic, and sure there's no rule that allows me to do it, and sure it defeats the purpose of the spell...but it's my character and I can say what I want, and the spell doesn't say that I'm not allowed to subvert the rules that way.

The same is true of illusions, disbelief without proof or a save. It subverts the whole will saving throw mechanic, there's no rule that allows you to do it, and it defeats the purpose of the spell...but it's your character and you say what you want, and the spell doesn't say you're not allowed to subvert the rules that way.

And the DM can say that rocks fall--that doesn't even break the rules.

Disbelief is disbelief. If you fail to disbelieve, you believe. If you fail to disbelieve and decide to disbelieve anyway, you're applying metagame knowledge to gain a game advantage.

[Ulzgoroth]

An entirely convincing argument should constitute proof...that's the meaning of the word, even: evidence sufficient to establish or produce belief in truth.

That is an incredibly bad definition of proof (and I don't care where you got it). Proof is evidence sufficient to establish truth. 'Belief in truth' is just about meaningless.

If you have a completely convincing argument, you automatically disbelieve. If you don't have a completely convincing argument, it's time to make a save--and if you fail that save, you believe.

So, if I have a completely convincing argument as to why the dragon isn't here, I can walk right through it...even if for reasons I can't possibly know about it turns out the dragon really is here? As for the save, that's a direct contradiction of the RAW. You get a save when you "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion" (phb173). Your getting a save is in no way dependent on whether or not you doubt the reality of the illusion.

Let me put it this way...
The save is for disbelief--if you fail your save, your character believes regardless of your out-of-character knowledge.

Disbelief is disbelief. If you fail to disbelieve, you believe. If you fail to disbelieve and decide to disbelieve anyway, you're applying metagame knowledge to gain a game advantage.

You're putting too much weight on a word that's barely used at all in the rules. 'Disbelief', in fact, appears exactly once in the section on saving against illusions: in parenthesis, in the title. 'Belief' isn't used in that section at all. 'Believing' or not believing in illusions is not part of the rules at this point so far as I can discern, for very good reasons.

A character who fails to save doesn't 'notice something is amiss'...which it seems to me means with the illusion itself. You are in no way prevented from noticing something is amiss with the fact that a crenelated wall of adamantium, complete with guards, has popped up across your path. Or (a little) more subtly, with noticing that there used to be an alley where there's now a ten foot high wall made of flamingo-pink bricks. Or, for an obviously D&Dish example, from noticing that while the bridge looks just fine to you, both the wizard and the cleric are yelling to stay off it because it's not real.

You also keep bringing up a 'metagame advantage'. I don't quite see that. As I say, I'm capable of choosing to disbelieve in a table if I want to. Distrusting something you have not verified as an illusion by passing a will save is quite advantageous...if what you're disbelieving is actually an illusion. Until you actually pass a will save, it's entirely possible that you're in fact ignoring a real buffalo stampede.

[Jasdoif]

Having two siblings, I assure you that it's possible to disregard something that you believe is real.

[tainsouvra]

That is an incredibly bad definition of proof (and I don't care where you got it). Proof is evidence sufficient to establish truth. 'Belief in truth' is just about meaningless.

Define "truth", then, as your definition is just shifting all the meaning to that word and I'm not to use any source whatsoever to define "proof".

So, if I have a completely convincing argument as to why the dragon isn't here, I can walk right through it...even if for reasons I can't possibly know about it turns out the dragon really is here?

This is not in any way implied by what I said. Care to explain where you came up with that one?

As for the save, that's a direct contradiction of the RAW. You get a save when you "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion" (phb173). Your getting a save is in no way dependent on whether or not you doubt the reality of the illusion.

Exactly why would you be studying something carefully to see if something was amiss if you didn't believe something was amiss beforehand? You're just being absurd now, the entire reason there's a rule for studying something is because you might have some motivation to study it. It's not in contradiction to the RAW, it's the basis for having the "inspect" rule at all.

You're putting too much weight on a word that's barely used at all in the rules. 'Disbelief', in fact, appears exactly once in the section on saving against illusions: in parenthesis, in the title. 'Belief' isn't used in that section at all. 'Believing' or not believing in illusions is not part of the rules at this point so far as I can discern, for very good reasons.

If you're going to harp on my usage of the term "disbelief", please note that this discussion started with you using the term, and I've been following suit. So, hypocrite much?

A character who fails to save doesn't 'notice something is amiss'...which it seems to me means with the illusion itself.

Is that stated anywhere in the rules, or your personal opinion based on how you've played? The rules don't make that distinction, and the illusory floor example doesn't really mesh with that interpretation. The illusion of the floor might be perfect, but if you managed to fall through it, you know for reasons outside of the illusion that it's obviously false, causing you to automatically be successful in your disbelief without the need for a saving throw. The rules assume that situational information is going to be weighed against the illusion, it's not only about the illusion itself.

You are in no way prevented from noticing something is amiss with the fact that a crenelated wall of adamantium, complete with guards, has popped up across your path. Or (a little) more subtly, with noticing that there used to be an alley where there's now a ten foot high wall made of flamingo-pink bricks. Or, for an obviously D&Dish example, from noticing that while the bridge looks just fine to you, both the wizard and the cleric are yelling to stay off it because it's not real.

Knowing that something is wrong with the situation and your character knowing for certain that he is faced with an illusion are not necessarily the same thing.

In the first example, you could get a save for studying it, because you would probably be doing exactly that when faced with such an unusual occurrance.

In the second example, you would get a save for studying it if you simply looked and an automatic success for putting your hand through it if you tried to touch it in the course of your inspection.

In the third example, you would get your first saving throw for studying the bridge, then another saving throw at +4 for having the illusion communicated to you. If you failed both, the bridge would seem quite real to you, but you could choose to trust your friends over your own conclusions if you wished (that doesn't mean you disbelieve, just that you do what they say regardless of what you believe).

You also keep bringing up a 'metagame advantage'. I don't quite see that. As I say, I'm capable of choosing to disbelieve in a table if I want to. Distrusting something you have not verified as an illusion by passing a will save is quite advantageous...if what you're disbelieving is actually an illusion. Until you actually pass a will save, it's entirely possible that you're in fact ignoring a real buffalo stampede.

I agree about the stampede example, but I don't think you're evaluating all the likely situations where illusions come up. Here's a simple example of how the metagame advantage can be downright game-breaking.

Player B knows the ruins, Player A just arrived in them and decided to turn hostile.
Player A: I'm attacking the Wizard (Player B).
Player B: I'm running around the corner and down that alley, then casting Silent Image to make it seem like the alley is too full of rubble to pass through.
Player A: I ignore the rubble and walk right through it, since my character chooses to disbelieve that it's there.

No saving throw, he just chooses to not believe it. No metagame advantage there? The saving throws are there for a reason--players sometimes know they should be ignoring something, but the character doesn't. Rolls to disbelieve, when in the absence of proof of an illusion, are an essential part of how illusions balance.

[horseboy]

Player A knows the ruins, Player B just arrived in them and decided to turn hostile.
Player A: I'm attacking the Wizard (Player B).
Player B: I'm running around the corner and down that alley, then casting Silent Image to make it seem like the alley is too full of rubble to pass through.
Player A: I ignore the rubble and walk right through it, since my character chooses to disbelieve that it's there.

No saving throw, he just chooses to not believe it. No metagame advantage there? The saving throws are there for a reason--players sometimes know they should be ignoring something, but the character doesn't. Rolls to disbelieve, when in the absence of proof of an illusion, are an essential part of how illusions balance.

No, that would pretty much be a metagaming occurrence. In that case he could use his Know: Local in place of his save, if it's better. Otherwise he's going to have to stop and think "Wait, wasn't this clear the other day when I was here, or was that the next street?" Thereby being the "close study" needed.

[Jasdoif]

Here's a simple example of how the metagame advantage can be downright game-breaking.

Player A knows the ruins, Player B just arrived in them and decided to turn hostile.
Player A: I'm attacking the Wizard (Player B).
Player B: I'm running around the corner and down that alley, then casting Silent Image to make it seem like the alley is too full of rubble to pass through.
Player A: I ignore the rubble and walk right through it, since my character chooses to disbelieve that it's there.

No saving throw, he just chooses to not believe it. No metagame advantage there?

Player B seriously declared casting an illusion against Player A's character, within earshout of Player A? That's the problem right there, Player B is metagaming, leaking knowledge to cast doubt on Player A's reaction.

[tainsouvra]

I fixed an A/B transposition that probably confused the issue just now, but I (naturally) agree that metagaming took place there

[Ulzgoroth]

Define "truth", then, as your definition is just shifting all the meaning to that word and I'm not to use any source whatsoever to define "proof".

...plucked from Mirriam-Webster Online: "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" seems good enough for me. Is the meaning of 'truth' actually in question?

This is not in any way implied by what I said. Care to explain where you came up with that one?

You wrote: "If you have a completely convincing argument, you automatically disbelieve."

Bards specialize in creating completely convincing (mechanically speaking) arguments...not necessarily for things that are in fact true...and so getting people to automatically disbelieve (in some mechanical sense?) in non-illusions?

Exactly why would you be studying something carefully to see if something was amiss if you didn't believe something was amiss beforehand? You're just being absurd now, the entire reason there's a rule for studying something is because you might have some motivation to study it. It's not in contradiction to the RAW, it's the basis for having the "inspect" rule at all.

It doesn't say you have to study it carefully with intent to look for something amiss...people can study something carefully for many other reasons. I do agree that you are intended to be able to study something carefully in an attempt to discern whether it is an illusion, and thus obtain a will save to see through the illusion.

But your save, unless the DM is applying circumstance modifiers to it, in no way depends on whether you suspect or have reason to suspect that there is an illusion, so long as you still take an appropriate action to bring about a save.

If you're going to harp on my usage of the term "disbelief", please note that this discussion started with you using the term, and I've been following suit. So, hypocrite much?

You're using 'disbelief' as a mechanical term relating to illusions and will saves. I'm not, though perhaps that wasn't clear. I would consider myself justly whapped with a newspaper for mistreatment of technical terminology, except that I don't think disbelief actually is technical terminology in D&D 3.5, whatever it may have been in the past.

Is that stated anywhere in the rules, or your personal opinion based on how you've played? The rules don't make that distinction, and the illusory floor example doesn't really mesh with that interpretation. The illusion of the floor might be perfect, but if you managed to fall through it, you know for reasons outside of the illusion that it's obviously false, causing you to automatically be successful in your disbelief without the need for a saving throw. The rules assume that situational information is going to be weighed against the illusion, it's not only about the illusion itself.

Based on reading the PHB entry, and probably subconsciously on my existing understanding of same. The not noticing anything amiss is obviously of some limited scope.

Passing through the illusion constitutes noticing something is amiss with the illusion itself. Specifically, that you just passed bodily through what was outwardly a stone wall. The rules do assume that situational information is weighed against the illusion, for instance in the +4 bonus you get from someone else telling you that it's an illusion and they've seen through it (oddly, somehow only if they're telling the truth...). I understand that to represent a more committed examination on the basis of having more evidence.

It is my impression from the information given on saving against illusions that the illusion is never 'perfect'. It's simply good enough that the imperfections aren't obvious enough force you to recognize them, and instead you must examine the illusion to find the flaws and thus defeat it.

Knowing that something is wrong with the situation and your character knowing for certain that he is faced with an illusion are not necessarily the same thing.

Yes. I'm talking about the first, with reason to suspect that what is wrong may be the presence of illusions. The second cannot be said to be the case until you've defeated the illusion, or possibly have discerned that there is magic of the illusion school present. (which doesn't tell you what kind of illusion...Magic Aura )

In the first example, you could get a save for studying it, because you would probably be doing exactly that when faced with such an unusual occurrance.

In the second example, you would get a save for studying it if you simply looked and an automatic success for putting your hand through it if you tried to touch it in the course of your inspection.

In the third example, you would get your first saving throw for studying the bridge, then another saving throw at +4 for having the illusion communicated to you. If you failed both, the bridge would seem quite real to you, but you could choose to trust your friends over your own conclusions if you wished (that doesn't mean you disbelieve, just that you do what they say regardless of what you believe).

I agree with everything you say here, pretty much. But if you fail all the saves, you're not prevented from suspecting that the apparently real things may still not be real. In the third example, I would note...you don't magically see through the bridge, just because your trusted friends tell you it isn't real. But you do (potentially) believe that there is in fact no bridge there. You still see it, unless you keep studying it until you manage to pass the save, but you aren't just humoring them and not using the perfectly good bridge.

Well, you could be. But you aren't required to be trusting the evidence of your eyes over the reports of your friends who are better equipped to judge.

I agree about the stampede example, but I don't think you're evaluating all the likely situations where illusions come up. Here's a simple example of how the metagame advantage can be downright game-breaking.

Player A knows the ruins, Player B just arrived in them and decided to turn hostile.
Player A: I'm attacking the Wizard (Player B).
Player B: I'm running around the corner and down that alley, then casting Silent Image to make it seem like the alley is too full of rubble to pass through.
Player A: I ignore the rubble and walk right through it, since my character chooses to disbelieve that it's there.

No saving throw, he just chooses to not believe it. No metagame advantage there? The saving throws are there for a reason--players sometimes know they should be ignoring something, but the character doesn't. Rolls to disbelieve, when in the absence of proof of an illusion, are an essential part of how illusions balance.

That isn't a problem with following what I still understand to be the actual rules given for illusions. That's a problem of Player A blatantly ignoring the game itself, and has to do with managing humans around a table rather than game mechanics. Problems with herding apes should be dealt with via ape-herding techniques.

Essentially, if players suck badly enough to even think about doing that, first of all you should indeed attempt 'rocks fall'. Against Player A, specifically, not either character. Secondly, in any kind of opposed action situation it's generally a good idea to have players communicate privately to the DM...saying "I cast an illusion at you!" is just making it unnecessarily harder to roleplay correctly. It makes it easier for everyone if the DM makes sure people don't get informed out of character that they're dealing with illusions.

...er, despite quoting the un-fixed version, I was reading in the fix. Even before you made it.

[tainsouvra]

I was indeed using "disbelief" as a technical term, as it is introduced in the PHB as the term for saving against an illusion, and had thought you were using that definition as well per your initial usage. At this point I think the difference between our interpretations depends largely on the degree to which the DM is ape-herding, as you put it, his way through illusions--I believe the ape-herding comes into effect not just in a PvP situation, but any time a player is using his own (rather than his character's, even if it is attempted to justify as such) knowledge of illusions rather than his character's reasonable responses to the situation in front of him. A strict interpretation of the rules reduces the amount of ape-herding by shifting it onto the rules themselves, but a DM fiat used liberally can accomplish the same thing, which now appears to be what you suggest for those situations where the line is being pushed or crossed.

Sound about right?

[Ulzgoroth]

I was indeed using "disbelief" as a technical term, as it is introduced in the PHB as the term for saving against an illusion, and had thought you were using that definition as well per your initial usage.

Er...is the word used more than that one time, as a paranthetical attachment to a section heading? I wouldn't be altogether surprised, but I'm not aware of any other case of it.

At this point I think the difference between our interpretations depends largely on the degree to which the DM is ape-herding, as you put it, his way through illusions--I believe the ape-herding comes into effect not just in a PvP situation, but any time a player is using his own (rather than his character's, even if it is attempted to justify as such) knowledge of illusions rather than his character's reasonable responses to the situation in front of him.

Er...perhaps terminology should be dropped to be more clear about things, since 'ape-herding' certainly isn't a technical term. I was using it to mean that in this case you have a problem of letting a player know things about the situation that their character does not, when they (evidently) can't be trusted to compartmentalize at all.

If you don't go around telling players "Suddenly, a giant illusion of a red dragon dives out of the sun, breathing fake fire at you!" you're maintaining the level of basic helpful knowledge-management that is all I'd think you really need...and which your example grossly violated, though not entirely by the DM's fault.

A strict interpretation of the rules reduces the amount of ape-herding by shifting it onto the rules themselves, but a DM fiat used liberally can accomplish the same thing, which now appears to be what you suggest for those situations where the line is being pushed or crossed.

Sound about right?

Sorry, I have not in the least been convinced that you are following 'a strict interpretation of the rules' and I am instead advocating DM fiat...If I'm understanding your meaning correctly I'd call it more a 'draconian misreading of the rules'.

I'm claiming both logical (no mind effects from spells that aren't mind-effecting!) and rules correctness, at present. Possibly not tabletop practicality correctness.

[Rachel Lorelei]

...let me get this straight.

Tain, are you really arguing that unless you succeed on a save versus an illusion, you can't treat it as though it might be or probably is an illusion?

The saving throw is only for guaranteed results, and only after interaction with the illusion. In fact, interaction generally happens when you suspect something might be an illusion. You can try to talk through a wall, illusion or not; it's just that you'll fail if it's not.

[tainsouvra]

Er...is the word used more than that one time, as a paranthetical attachment to a section heading? I wouldn't be altogether surprised, but I'm not aware of any other case of it.

It's used in the "saving throw" section of the vast majority of the illusion school, actually. It's not just used one time, the PHB alone uses it a dozen times (at least)--it's used consistently throughout the "spells" section. Figments and Phantasms that allow disbelief refer to it as such; "Disbelief" is one of the most defining terms for illusions, actually, and the circumstances under which a spell may be disbelieved are sometimes directly spelled out. It's not some fluff I'm taking too seriously, it's in most of the spell descriptions for illusions.

Regarding the example, it was meant to show a player acting with certainty on information the character shouldn't be certain of, the blatant passing of that information was just so I could keep it short. Any case in which the character shouldn't be completely certain, but the player chooses to have the character act with certainty, fits the same bill...most of them just take more than a couple lines of dialog to present, so I went for the easy one. The same principle, DM intervention being called for because of a player chooses to disbelieve in a situation where it's unjustified, applies to any such case.

Sorry, I have not in the least been convinced that you are following 'a strict interpretation of the rules' and I am instead advocating DM fiat...If I'm understanding your meaning correctly I'd call it more a 'draconian misreading of the rules'.

The "DM fiat" portion, I'm not sure how you're contesting, you'd have to elaborate. The idea behind my response was that my reading of the rules makes a DM fiat unnecessary in such metagaming situations, while yours would require more personal intervention each time. In general, that's an indication that the reading that does not require DM intervention is the intended one, but it is not (nor was it intended to be) proof that it was the only possible reading--just a better one for actual gameplay, as it is consistent with how the spells involved should work, per the descriptions for disbelief and the spells themselves.

I'm claiming both logical (no mind effects from spells that aren't mind-effecting!) and rules correctness, at present. Possibly not tabletop practicality correctness.

My interpretation does reflect the nuts-and-bolts of actually playing through without running into nearly as many situations that require DM intervention to resolve. I would argue, however, that since the rules are intended to actually be used, that interpretation is not to be dismissed lightly.

Additionally, I do remind you that most Figment/Phantasm spells refer to disbelief in a manner consistent with my reading, but which are likely to clash with the idea of "choosing to disbelieve anyway" for mechanics reasons similar to "choosing to avoid the Fireball anyway" since it directly clashes with the information about how saving throws are made.

The saving throw is only for guaranteed results, and only after interaction with the illusion.

Is that mentioned anywhere in the rules whatsoever, or is that simply how your group has decided to play it? The actual description simply says that, if a saving throw is required due to interaction but in the absence of proof of an illusion, a successful save disbelieves while an unsuccessful one does not.

In fact, interaction generally happens when you suspect something might be an illusion. You can try to talk through a wall, illusion or not; it's just that you'll fail if it's not.

If your character's inspection or interaction finds absolutely nothing amiss with the illusion, why does he decide to walk through what he has every possible reason to believe is a solid wall? Failing a saving throw against an illusion means you fail to disbelieve, and if your character believes he is facing a solid wall, is there any non-metagame reason why he should walk through it?

[Jasdoif]

Failing a saving throw against an illusion means you fail to disbelieve, and if your character believes he is facing a solid wall, is there any non-metagame reason why he should walk through it?

...because your character knows about the existence of such deceptive illusions?


Really, what exactly is the problem here? Unless the DM has let the players know what's an illusion and what's not, how they can be metagaming based on what they don't know? Let them try to disbelieve any wall they want to. They'll fail if the wall's real, of course. Let them try to walk through. Inform them they've knocked themselves silly.

[tainsouvra]

...because your character knows about the existence of such deceptive illusions?

...but he doesn't believe that this wall is one of them, or he would have disbelieved successfully.

Really, what exactly is the problem here? Unless the DM has let the players know what's an illusion and what's not, how they can be metagaming based on what they don't know? Let them try to disbelieve any wall they want to. They'll fail if the wall's real, of course. Let them try to walk through. Inform them they've knocked themselves silly.

I like that solution, and would happily use it if it became necessary. It's funny

The problem, of course, is that you can only fail if someone rolls a check, which goes back to the idea that a check really is required, even if in your case the failure is going to have a more concrete (pun intended) result.