Common (figment) rule issues

[Fero]

I am trying to compile a list of the most common rules issues that come up when players try to use (figments) in game. I am not trying to resolve the disagreements, just identify them. Issues I have identified thus far include:
1- what constitutes "interaction"
2- do (figments) block light sources?
3- do (figments) block other sensory input (ie, can you hear a real whisper over an illusion of a marching band?)
4- what constitutes "proof" that an illusion is false?
5- What skills, if any, do you need to make convincing illusions (ie painting or knowledge nature to make a convincing lion)?
6- Can you create a figment of empty space (such as a pit on a solid floor?)

Please let me know if you have encountered any others. Thank you.

[Telok]

Reflection of light was one, and the casting of shadows was another. Also transparency once, in regards to an illusionary glass window, but thay may have just been that DM.

[Fizban]

Might also include "can figments cast light?" if you're considering light source problems.

Add "can you make an illusion of a non-interactable 'substance' such as 'fog' or 'darkness'," next to either interaction or empty space.

Should note that many of these questions will actually depend on the spells involved, since they have different parameters and wordings.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Interaction requires at least a move action

[Fero]

Interaction requires at least a move action

My understanding is similar but I do not have a citation. Do you happen to know where the move action requirement is from?

[bekeleven]

I discuss interaction and illusion spells in this thread from last year.

[Fero]

I discuss interaction and illusion spells in this thread from last year.

Good discussion. I like your "two minds" analysis. I think I need to re-read to absorb everything though. Dense stuff :)

[Duke of Urrel]

Interaction requires at least a move action

My understanding is similar but I do not have a citation. Do you happen to know where the move action requirement is from?

As far as I know, the move action requirement does not appear in the official rulebooks. It was suggested by Skip Williams in the series "Rules of the Game" (21 February 2006).

For game purposes, we can define "studying" an illusion as taking an action (which DMs can choose to make a move action since this is an extrapolation of the rules and not an actual rule) to observe an illusion effect and note its details. Some DMs I know require a Spot or Search check to disbelieve an illusion. That's going too far. Merely pausing and using an action to make the check is enough to allow a saving throw.

In my opinion, it is possible for an illusion to interact with you, and in this case, you do not have to take an action to interact with the illusion. For example, if an illusion resembles a dangerous creature and tries to scare you away, I think this counts as interaction, so that you, without taking any action of your own, can make a Will save to disbelieve the illusion.

[Ramza00]

My understanding is similar but I do not have a citation. Do you happen to know where the move action requirement is from?

It is Pathfinder and I like it, the ultimate intrigue rules. They broke illusions into 5 categories.

• 1: Phantasms affect your mind directly aka similar to enchantments and are hallucinations. No action needed to interact, for they come straight from your mind. Thus do not work on mindless creatures such as Int - like some undead and some constructs,
• 2: Figments create sensory experiences and thus affect mindless creatures as long as they have the appropriate perception (aka Wisdom modifier). Image spells are figments.
• 3: Glammers either enhance existening senses or hid existing senses like disguise self and invisibility. This work with mindless creatures which use perception.
• 4: Patterns aka Lights and Colors, often affecting instaneously.
• 5: Shadows aka Darkness, Shadows, and so on. Often partially real where you pull shadow plane stuff to the material plane.

Figments almost always use a move or greater action to have the Will disbelieve. Like free action talking where you yell at a person will not tell you the Ogre is fake, but trying to have a back and forth conversation over six seconds like a diplomacy, sense motive, or intimidate and this is now longer than a move action and you notice the figment sensory data is false and off thus giving a chance to disbelieve.

[Darg]

In my opinion, it is possible for an illusion to interact with you, and in this case, you do not have to take an action to interact with the illusion. For example, if an illusion resembles a dangerous creature and tries to scare you away, I think this counts as interaction, so that you, without taking any action of your own, can make a Will save to disbelieve the illusion.

It would be one thing if the spell was trying to cause fear, but if it was just an image with sound out of range for a standard frightful presence there isn't enough information to disbelieve it. If you're just scared of dragons because dragons are deadly and running increases your odds of survival it is not interacting with you. Now if the image tried to breath fire at you and you were engulfed by it, then it would be interacting with you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7) image of a weapon in hand threatening spaces. It doesn't actually threaten, but they don't know that yet.

[bekeleven]

I dunno, sounds like I'd still be threatened.

"Flanking" is a condition where you defend yourself less effectively because you're trying to defend yourself from too many directions. If I think a guy with a sword is to my left, I'm probably threatened by it. However, how abstract are we getting? "Defending" might include the occasional proactive strike, or batting their sword out of the way. Maybe you're threatened but get a free will save each round because you're physically interacting.

The trouble comes from the grey area, where you're not physically interacting, but interacting nonetheless.

[Darg]

The trouble comes from the grey area, where you're not physically interacting, but interacting nonetheless.

What grey area? The bar is set to stopped to study or probing. As the more abstract understanding is covered by careful study, it only makes sense that what's left is the physical understanding. There are a lot of ways to interact with things, but when the example is so clear making it muddied is simply a recipe for confusion and inconsistency. Physical interaction would be either crossing swords or noticing as they swing that there isn't the sound of a blade slicing air. For example, I'm not interacting with a book in someone's hand just because they wave it in the air to pantomime hello. I do interact with it when they use it to fan me after I pass out from the heat.

[Fero]

@ bekeleven

Do you mind if I link your article in a guide I am writing? Thank you either way.

[Telok]

I dunno, sounds like I'd still be threatened.

"Flanking" is a condition where you defend yourself less effectively because you're trying to defend yourself from too many directions. If I think a guy with a sword is to my left, I'm probably threatened by it. However, how abstract are we getting? "Defending" might include the occasional proactive strike, or batting their sword out of the way. Maybe you're threatened but get a free will save each round because you're physically interacting.

The trouble comes from the grey area, where you're not physically interacting, but interacting nonetheless.

Yeah, we had a series of discussions every new edition about invisible & unknown threats whether they triggered flanking or not. Generally we end up going that the unknowing victim won't get tagged as "flanked" to the known attacker because they aren't changing their behavior off a 1 vs 1 fight style, but the invisible attacker gets both the invis bonus and the flanked bonus if its at all applicable.

[Chronos]

Just a reminder that the OP is looking merely for a list of potential issues, not for a debate or resolution for any of them. "Can an illusion flank?" is certainly such an issue, and we can leave it at that.

To add another one, can an illusion make a creature think they're taking damage, even if they're not? For instance, if I use a sufficiently-high-level illusion spell (which includes thermal illusions) to make an illusion of a fireball, will my opponent feel it as uncomfortably but not burning hot, or feel it as burning hot but (for reasons they can't understand) not actually burning, or feel it as burning hot and think they actually have taken damage, until they have a chance to assess their condition?

[Fero]

Updated list with how I would rule.on each one follows. Please let me know if you have anything else or if you think any of my rule interpretations are unreasonable.

1. What constitutes "interacting" with an illusion? (I would say any physical contact or close engagement, such as conversation, constitutes interaction.)
2. What is the minimum type of action for interaction? (In most situations, interaction must be part of at least a move action. However, I may also allow swift actions that are comparable to standard actions, such as quickened spells, to count as interaction. In the later case I would probably require a spot or listen check. Note yhat interaction does not consume the action. For example, attacking through illusory fog is interaction.)
3. Do opponents get saves if the illusion "interacts" with them? (I would say yes, but only in limited circumstances.)
4. If so, what type of action by the illusion constitutes " interaction" by the illusion? (If the illusion forces physical contact or tries actively debuff foes [for example an orb of absolute black mimicking deeper darkness], I would allow a save.)
5. What constitutes proof that an illusion is false? (I would say multiple rounds of physical interaction or physically passing through an illusion that cannot normally be penetrated, constitutes proof that it is false.)
6. If the PC tells allies a spell is an illusion, do they get a free save at +4 or do they instead auto.atically disbelieve? (I would normally say the allies must save. If the fail, they may logically know an illusion is false, but still perceive it. However, I would increase the bonus to the save the longer the Illusionist and ally work together and would eventually allow the ally to automatically succeed, if they so choose.)
7. What happens if someone makes a spellcraft check when an illusion is cast? (I would treat this the same as if the caster said "hey, i am casting an illusion!" In other words, I would allow a free save with a +4 bonus.)
8. Can an illusionist choose to believe their own illusions? (I would generally say no, as they know they cast the illusion. However, the the Chains of Disbelief ACF).
9. What are (figments) and (glamers) anyways? (This issue depends heavily on the game world. As a practical matter, I would generally treat them as physical constructs of light, sound, etc. In other words, i would say that, for purposes of sight, sound, etc. that illusions act just like real objects, except they cannot normally do damage.)
10. How do illusions interact with light sources? (These are tricky as they depend heavily on how your DM adjudicates the preceeding question).
A. Can you make darkness by blocking light? (I would say yes, but blocking multiple light sources or mobile light sources may prove challenging.)
B. Can you make light from an illusion? (I would say yes.)
C. Do illusions cast shadows? (I would say yes. Importantly, even if I answered no, I would not make the lack of Shadow automatically trigger a save. Instead, I would rule that noticing the lack of Shadow is one of the details that leads to a successful save).
D. Can an illusion cast a reflection (I would say yes).
E. Can illusion be semitransparent, such as a window? (I would say yes).
11. Do illusions interfere with other forms of perception? For example will an illusion of a lion roaring make it harder to hear a thief moving silently? (I would say yes).
12. Can you use a (figment) to create an illusion of empty space, such as making a wall appear to be a room. (I would generally say no as changing the appearance of things is the domain of (glamer) spells.)
13. Can you make illusions of insubstantial substances such as darkness or fog? (I would say yes but that traveling through the AoE would trigger a save for interaction).
14. Can illusions flank? (I would say yes, so long as the target believes the illusion is a real hreat.)
15. Do invisible creatures flank? (This is a tough one. I would say that invisible get the benefit of flanking with an ally but do not bestow that benefit to an ally unless the target is aware of the invisible threat.)
16. Can (figments) create the illusion of damage? For example, do enemies passing through an illusory wall of fire see their flesh burn? (I would generally say no because creating the appearance if damage would be within the domain of the (glamer) subschool.

[bekeleven]

@ bekeleven

Do you mind if I link your article in a guide I am writing? Thank you either way.

Sure, feel free. I think most people are OK with others linking their content, it only gets dicey when quoting from it.

[Eladrinblade]

1- what constitutes "interaction"
2- do (figments) block light sources?
3- do (figments) block other sensory input (ie, can you hear a real whisper over an illusion of a marching band?)
4- what constitutes "proof" that an illusion is false?
5- What skills, if any, do you need to make convincing illusions (ie painting or knowledge nature to make a convincing lion)?
6- Can you create a figment of empty space (such as a pit on a solid floor?)

1. Touching, either with a limb, an object, or even a thrown/fired object.
2. They shouldn't.
3. They create real sound, so no.
4. Sticking your hand through a wall.
5. None, you just need to know what a lion looks and sounds like (edit: actually, just looks. You could know what one looks like but not sounds like, and give it a wrong roar, like that of a bear instead or something, which a person with know (nature) could notice is wrong)
6. No.

One I had trouble with is if a mounted character casts mirror image, what happens? It should be useless because you can still tell which one is actually connected to the mount, right? The only way to get around that is by having some method of sharing the spell with the mount.