Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Disbelief?
-
2008-04-04, 09:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Disbelief?
Okay, so I've got a question about illusions.
If you successfully identify a spell an opponent casts as an illusion, does this provide proof that the illusion isn't real, thereby discarding the need for a saving throw?
It's something I've never really considered, and it seems an important question. If successful identification of an illusion spell renders it useless, it means there's a class of combat illusions that are pointless to use against spellcasters.Drew
This is for everyone who squints hard at stuff in the hope they'll spontaneously develop telekinesis.
-
2008-04-04, 10:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Department of Smiting
- Gender
-
2008-04-04, 10:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Gender
-
2008-04-04, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Wow. This is the third thread recently that has reminded me of the KoDT comic strip.
Whenever the player had something bad happen to them, they had their characters attempt to "disbelieve" in case it's an illusion.
DM: "The rabid pitbull tears into your throat, severing your jugular vein."
Dave: "I disbelieve!"
-
2008-04-04, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Well, the rules from the SRD are below.
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.
I suppose the question is what constitutes proof.Drew
This is for everyone who squints hard at stuff in the hope they'll spontaneously develop telekinesis.
-
2008-04-04, 10:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Ah. I was confused and had a smaller bonus.
But at least I wasn't making it all up.
-
2008-04-04, 11:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Disbelief?
Nah, the question is how much your spellcaster knows about the other, about spells, and how much leeway your DM is giving you. I would allow this in general, but invent NPCs, like high level mages in a mage order that worked out how to use the illusion hand signals for a summon monster spell. Enemy mage sees illusion signals, laughs at the fiendish pitbull, and gets eaten.
-
2008-04-04, 11:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- N. California
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Psst, hey, illusionists... buy complete scoundrel.
Conceal Spellcasting and False Theurgy are both great ways to get around this. (my opinion is that successful spellcraft does constitute proof) Easy for beguilers to get, less so for others, but possibly worth it.Lantanese gnome avatar by the talented Honest Tiefling.
Don't call it a rework - 5e Ranger optional class features
-
2008-04-04, 11:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Re: Disbelief?
Letting players replace anything will skill checks- not a great idea. Skill checks are super easy to make.
-
2008-04-04, 11:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Re: Disbelief?
A) there are plenty of illusions that can beat the tar out of you regardless, proving it's an illusion doesn't prove its a harmless one.
B) characters don't know if they succeed. for all they know they got it that wrong
C) head knowledge and intuitive knowledge are 2 different things. we all know there is nothing in the abandoned house, doesn't mean your heart rate won't triple if you try to go in.
I'd allow at max a +4 on their save.Last edited by thubby; 2008-04-04 at 11:38 PM.
a tiny space dedicated to a beloved grandpa now passed. may every lunch be peanut butter-banana sandwiches.
i has 2/4 an internets.
old avatarsSpoiler
gnome_4ever:
-
2008-04-04, 11:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Land of Cleves
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Wow. This is the third thread recently that has reminded me of the KoDT comic strip.
Whenever the player had something bad happen to them, they had their characters attempt to "disbelieve" in case it's an illusion.
In short, illusions were a lot nastier in 2nd.Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
—As You Like It, III:ii:328
Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics
-
2008-04-05, 01:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Northern California
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
Visit the Chocolate Hammer IRC channel!
(IRC Joining Guide Here!)
-
2008-04-05, 01:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Texas...for now
- Gender
Re: Disbelief?
It's a Skill Trick from Complete Scoundrel that allows you to make one spell look like another, even with a successful Spellcraft check.
[/sarcasm]
FAQ is not RAW!Avatar by the incredible CrimsonAngel.
Saph:It's surprising how many problems can be solved by one druid spell combined with enough aggression.
I play primarily 3.5 D&D. Most of my advice will be based off of this. If my advice doesn't apply, specify a version in your post.
-
2008-04-05, 02:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: Disbelief?
With a spellcraft check you should be able to identify it. However, you should also have the possibility of auto-failing your throw if bungle your spellcraft check and you think it's an illusion, therefore not resisting it. Finally, you're going to need to combo this with spot or listen to identify the spell being cast. It's likely that an illusion spell being cast right infront of you is going to be shadow evocation, however, which is infact partially real...
-
2008-04-05, 04:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Gender