Interacting with Figments& Glamers

[User3]

That's not a fix. That's not even a difference. Having to concentrate every round to keep your illusion functioning is the normal rules. Only spells like Programmed Illusion can react to stimuli without constant input, and I think I've seen that spell cast a grand total of once ever.

I honestly think your idea has merit, but don't try to sell it with "new rules" that are just the old rules.

No one uses Programmed illusion simply because the current rules are written so poorly that we just handwave them away so that every illusion is a default Programmed Illusion.

The issue is:

A: By the rules, you need to do a Concentrate action (standard) to extend the duration of the spell. That all the rules say: duration.

B. By the rules, you should need a Redirect action (move equivilant) to change what the spell is doing. Technically, it shouldn't be able to react to someone unless you had readied a Redirect action for that person. By the Core rules, no illusion in the book can act or react without a caster's Redirect action (and I'm not even sure if the spell description allows the caster to use a Redirect action so that an illusion reacts).

C. People want illusions to take part in battle and react convincingly to events, and because the rules don't say if redirection or concentration allows that or not, DMs make a call and usually allow it.

Now, we admit that there is a lot of handwaving of the details of most spells, but I've never seen an illusion cast where the DM forced the caster to spend the Redirect action. Most DMs will just give you free interaction and reaction as long as you are doing the Concentration.

Thats why the current rules don't work. They rely 100% on DM interpretation, which is the death knell for any mechanic. These rules are new in the sense that they bring illusions into line with the way that people play them.

--------------------------
To "fix" the illusion class of spells, you need to build on the redirect rules so that people know what kind of interaction happens, and what the limits are. Giving illusions stats like monsters makes it possible for people to get hints as to an illusion's true nature.

Make illusions smaller, for example, and give the AoE a movement rate so that someone can stumble out of it. Give it a "reaction time AC" so that we can figure out if the illusionist can think an Illusionary Troll dodging faster than the fighter can stab his sword (or if the fighter has a trick up his sleave that will force the illusionist to react inappropriately.)

Change illusions so that they have fixed, non-Concentration durations, and that a Redirect action is needed to make them react to a single person. Turn the Redirect action into a Standard action, and force people to Ready it to make it react to one guy. Make it so that Redirection happens on the illusionists turn (and is not continuous, so that people can move out of illusions not Readied on them).

Make it a no save spell so that "interaction" can no longer become an hour-long argument every game.

In this way, mass blinding become impossible and the spell becomes workable and balanced.

[RandomCasualty]

If a 1st level illusionist can blind a 10th level character without a save, that isn't balanced.

[User3]

If a 1st level illusionist can blind a 10th level character without a save, that isn't balanced.

There's no reason why a "box on the head" illusion doesn't get a Reflex save.

The rule can read like this: "If if the caster has readied an action to react to a person, and is attempting to create an illusion onto that person that is smaller than his whole square (like putting an eyeless mask on his face to blind him or surround his body with an illusion of an orc or another monster), then allow a Reflex save each round based on the spell's DC. Each sucessfull save allows the person to avoid the illusion in his square that round (and offers partial concealment to that person that round).

Illusions that fill the whole square allow total concealment to anyone in the square, have no save, and blind anyone inside them."

[Username17]

1121817037[/unixtime]]If a 1st level illusionist can blind a 10th level character without a save, that isn't balanced.

Why not? Is it any worse than a 1st level Conjurer leaving a 10th level character flat footed without a save by casting Grease?

Most 10th level characters should probably be resistant or immune to vision-based attacks (either by having Uncanny Dodge or Blind-fighting or Tremor Sense or whatever). How many 10th level characters have actual ranks in the balance skill sufficient to keep their dex bonus when on uneven ground.

Y'all are making this way too damned complicated. A no-save Illusion system would be just fine. You just let people do anything they want to the visibility of anyone in the area for as long as they maintain concentration. I just can't bring myself to give a damn.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1121828124[/unixtime]]
Why not? Is it any worse than a 1st level Conjurer leaving a 10th level character flat footed without a save by casting Grease?

Yes it is. A lot worse.

Being blind means you miss 50% of the time, and you're flat footed. Plus a bunch of other problems.

Granted some monsters are going to be immune to it, but so what? If it works against even 50% of the monster manual which I'm pretty sure it does, it's too powerful.

A lone 1st levle character against 10th level opposition really shouldn't be doing much except aid another actions.

With a possible 50% no save miss chance, I really can't see why everyone wouldn't have a bunch of 1st level illusionists travelling with them. A 1st level character can literally halve your opponent's offensive potental.

[Murtak]

How exactly do you propose to make this work?

Well how about this...

If someone is inside an illusion, anyone can see them as a semi transparent image.

If you are inside an illusion, you can see out of it as though it were transparent.

So you do not want anyone to be able to use an illusion to say, create a wall and thus disguise a doorway?

[Kirin_Corrigan]

?

Are you sure you're reading RC's post correctly?

[Username17]

He sure is. The door inside the illusionary wall would be a semi-transparent image. Dumb. But that is what RC was saying.

I am just unable to see low level illusionists being able to blind people as being anything close to a big deal. It isn't like high level parties can't wander around with tremor sense and then have 1st level clerics wandering behind them spamming obscuring mist. And looking through the 10th level monsters that can be seriously affected by this sort of thing, I note that most of them could also be beaten by lending your flying carpet to a 1st level expert and having him throw rocks at the beast until it died.

Yeah, low level casters in certain specific circumstances can be a big boon to medium and even high level parties. Like when you lend them your spell trigger items and have them unleash the power of your wands just as well as you could. But as K already pointed out, at medium and high level those low level casters have the life expectency of mosquitoes. When you trick out some guy with 5 hit points into being a decently impressive offensive threat against a Grey Slaad he's going to be Chaos Hammered.

-Username17

[Kirin_Corrigan]

But RC said "someone", not "something". All RC is saying is "if you are inside the illusion, you see through it". The door inside/behind the illusion won't be seen until you go through the illusion itself, which, unsurprisingly, is not different from how things work already.

[Murtak]

So as soon as you put your finger into the illusion it basically becomes useless, right? How are you supposed to hide a door with an illusion that can be seen through by merely having a summoned sparrow scrape along the walls?

On the upside you pick up new uses though. You could use silent image as a poor man's invisibility purge or to negate concealment.

[RandomCasualty]

Right, basically it would apply just to creatures. There's no problem putting a wall over a doorway.

It's just that when you try to put an illuson over a creature, it can see through it. So you can't put a box over someone's head and block their vision. The box would be there, but the person could actually see through the box so long as their head remained inside of it.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

So as soon as you put your finger into the illusion it basically becomes useless, right?

Though I see this kind of attitude every goddamn day, I can't stop being always amazed by how far someone will go in order to bend/twist/purposefully misunderstand what other people say. Sometimes it's unbelievable.

Well, though I guess RC will answer that part himself, I'll tell you what the tiniest bit of common sense dictates: "sticking your finger into the illusion" is not the same as "being inside the illusion". This ground-breaking, earth-shattering revelation is really all there is to it. OTOH, it's crystal clear that RC was referring to having your eyes/head inside the illusion in the first place.

Stick your hand into an illusion, and you'll realize that that's an illusion, yeah, though you won't automatically see through it (you'd get you normal Will save for interacting with an illusion, though). Stick your face or your head, instead, and you'll see through it automatically.

[Murtak]

I guess I will just have to repeat the post you ignored apart from the single sentence you quoted:

How are you supposed to hide a door with an illusion that can be seen through by merely having a summoned sparrow scrape along the walls?

On the upside you pick up new uses though. You could use silent image as a poor man's invisibility purge or to negate concealment.

Is any of this intended?

And given that you can make illusions move, how do you propose to stop the old box-around-the-head trick with "you can see through any illusion your eyes are in" anyways?

[Kirin_Corrigan]

How are you supposed to hide a door with an illusion that can be seen through by merely having a summoned sparrow scrape along the walls?

It always worked like that. It's intended, AFAICT. It's fine the way it is.

And given that you can make illusions move, how do you propose to stop the old box-around-the-head trick with "you can see through any illusion your eyes are in" anyways?

Making people understand the meaning of the rule, rather than having to write it so that you can't twist it.

Or making clear that any 3-D illusion "fills" the space that its shape takes up.

Or making the spell fail if one tries to box up someone's body or body part.

Or any combination of the above.

I'm partial to the first option, actually.

[Murtak]

How are you supposed to hide a door with an illusion that can be seen through by merely having a summoned sparrow scrape along the walls?

It always worked like that. It's intended, AFAICT. It's fine the way it is.

What, summoned creatures have always glowed transparently when moving into an illusion? Since when?

Making people understand the meaning of the rule, rather than having to write it so that you can't twist it.

Or, in other words, trusting the players - in which case this entire discussion is moot, since players you can trust not to abuse the spells need neither anti-abuse-rules, nor vague anti-abuse-guidelines.

Or making clear that any 3-D illusion "fills" the space that its shape takes up.

I am not even sure what you mean by that. Are you refering to the squares or blocks the illusion takes up or the boundaries of the object(s) you create?

Or making the spell fail if one tries to box up someone's body or body part.

Go ahead and try to write that one up. I can't see how you make a rule like that work at all. You would need some way to determine what constitutes "boxing someone up" and what merely qualifies as "obstructing someone's line of view".
- Minimum distances don't work if you want illusions to be able to hide someone or to not blink out of existance when someone gets close.
- "Blocking line of sight" will not work, as all illusions do that.
- "Completely surrounding someone" will not work, as you can always leave a hole in the illusion.

As far as I can see it is impossible to create a rule that determines between fair use and abuse, which is what you are trying to do here.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

How are you supposed to hide a door with an illusion that can be seen through by merely having a summoned sparrow scrape along the walls?

It always worked like that. It's intended, AFAICT. It's fine the way it is.

What, summoned creatures have always glowed transparently when moving into an illusion? Since when?

You see, at some point I'm left wondering if there's anything resembling a form of communication between the two of us. Looks like you have some sort of selective memory and keep track only of bits of what is being discussed. Random bits at that.

First, the sparrow doesn't glow, even less if it's just near an illusion. The sparrow can be seen as a sort of translucid shadow through the illusion under the following circumstances: a) the sparrow is inside the illusion b) you're looking at the illusion from "outside" when the sparrow is "inside".

I don't particularly like the above, but that's how it works.

That being said, under the current rules, if there's an illusion masking a doorway a sparrow scraping along the wall will at some point go through the illusion (completely or just in part) and when you see that its body goes (wholly or in part) straight through the wall you know there's an illusion there.

Making people understand the meaning of the rule, rather than having to write it so that you can't twist it.

Or, in other words, trusting the players - in which case this entire discussion is moot, since players you can trust not to abuse the spells need neither anti-abuse-rules, nor vague anti-abuse-guidelines.

I don't trust the players per se, I trust them to understand what a given ruling is meant to accomplish. For that you may very well need a "vague anti-abuse guideline".

I am not even sure what you mean by that. Are you refering to the squares or blocks the illusion takes up or the boundaries of the object(s) you create?

I was thinking about the boundaries of the illusion itself.

[Username17]

A bowl shape that fits around someone's head such that there is no longer line of sight between that head and me can have no part of it pass through the target.

And you know what? That's less complex than an illusion of a moving displacer beast. It has to move less than a fighting orc. It is smaller than a bird, and it is farther from any enemy than an illusionary wall or floor.

If illusions can do anything, then they can be created as concave regions that obscure your opponent's vision. If you can put an illsuionary wall in front of a door, or put an illusionary ogre in front of yourself, then you can blind people. Period. There's no possible set of restrictions that would make the box-on-your-head illsusion fail.

The only solution is to just not worry about it.

---

Let's face it, RC's weird thing about people being inside an illusion wouldn't even stop the box on your head unless it also stopped the illusionary wall. The box is around the target, not through the target. That means that it is between the target and me. It also means that it is close to the target, but that's all it means.

In order for the victim to see through the box by virtue of being "in" it, he would have to see through any illusions in the same space as himself (as that is the only sense that he is "inside" the illusion). And if that is all it takes, then illusionary walls are just this side of completely worthless.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1121878093[/unixtime]]A bowl shape that fits around someone's head such that there is no longer line of sight between that head and me can have no part of it pass through the target.

Well basically you would use the entire volume of the illusion, not just the part of it that's supposed to be solid. So for sight purposes, an illusionary box would be considered a solid cube, and an illusionary bowl is a hemisphere. If any part of someone's body is in the illusion's volume then you can see through it.

It's really pretty simply to deal with that problem.

We should be worried about everything in the illusions' area of effect, not simply the parts of the illusion that are solid and the parts that are not.

It does however mean that you'd need several illusionary walls to adequately hide a creature from four dimensions.

[Username17]

1121878941[/unixtime]]
Well basically you would use the entire volume of the illusion, not just the part of it that's supposed to be solid. So for sight purposes, an illusionary box would be considered a solid cube, and an illusionary bowl is a hemisphere. If any part of someone's body is in the illusion's volume then you can see through it.

You really have no idea how topology works, do you? If you are fighting with an illusionary orc, you are "inside" it in many respects. If you are standing under an illusionary archway you are "inside" it.

You can't treat any concavity as if it were filled. That's fvcking insane. And even if you did, it still wouldn't work, since you can jolly well just have a flat plane that moves between their face and you.

Topologically, a bowl is a god damned sphere. It has a concavity in it, and you are fitting their fvcking head in it. You can't stop this shit with your bad geometry.

We should be worried about everything in the illusions' area of effect, not simply the parts of the illusion that are solid and the parts that are not.

Then illusionary walls don't work, because people are inside their area by being next to them. And illusionary creatures don't work, because you are inside their area just by being anywhere it could attack. Your idea is a non-starter. If merely being in the area of effect makes you automatically see through illusions, then the standard illusions of "orcish warrior" and "fvcking wall" don't work.

It does however mean that you'd need several illusionary walls to adequately hide a creature from four dimensions.

Does someone have a "time" sense now?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1121879675[/unixtime]]
You really have no idea how topology works, do you? If you are fighting with an illusionary orc, you are "inside" it in many respects. If you are standing under an illusionary archway you are "inside" it.

You can't treat any concavity as if it were filled. That's fvcking insane. And even if you did, it still wouldn't work, since you can jolly well just have a flat plane that moves between their face and you.

Yeah, thinking about it now, it probably can't be worded in a way that prevents all that kind of cheese.

It'd probably be easier to just say this.

Figments cannot react to other people's actions. Period. A figment can't be an illusionary helmet you're wearing, or a box that follows your face. Figments don't follow stuff. At best they exist simply as a free standing effect that cannot be contingent on other things. They have the precision a creature would have in its actions, thus since you cannot cover someone's eyes as a creature action, your illusion cannot do that either.

Glamers have the abiltiy to create illusions that are actively "attached" to someone. They can put you in an illusory suit of armor or give you a magical box on your head. However, you are capable of seeing through any glamers that might be on you. So if a glamer turns you into a tree then you can still see things on the outside.

That should solve the box problems.

[Username17]

While that has the advantage of working at all, it has the drawback that you can no longer fight an illusionary opponent. In order to have an illusion respond to your actions, it has to be a glamer targetting you. Which means that everyone except you will see a ferocious monster attacking you. You'll se right through it.

Which leaves only shadow monsters as illusion-based threats, and those are real.

---

The game hasn't broken under the strain of such fire and forget master pieces as Obscuring Mist and Grease, I really don't see what the big dealio is about Silent Image all of a sudden. It doesn't do anything if you are all alone, and it's a bad deal much of the time when you are in a group.

You sacrifice 100% of your own personal offensive output in order to eliminate 50% of the offensive output of one or more enemies unless they True See/Strike, Tremorsense, Blindfight, or move out of the area. That's good enough tactical trade-off that you'll use it sometimes, but it's nothing like overpowering in most of those instances. And it's a bad trade-off in enough situations that it's nothing like a no-brainer.

Sure it is more often a good deal when you are a low-level screw head fighting along side of massively powerful dudes, but that's the situation in which you probably die whether you have something useful to do or not, so honestly I don't really care. And since this is a conentration-duration action, making yourself useful in this way is probably shortening your life expectency even more.

While your latest iteration has the distinction of being the first nerftastic proposal that is geometrically sound, you still haven't made a good case that that nerfing this is in any way important. Half your opponent's offensive capability is only an even trade for 100% your own when you are fighting enemies of CR = EL + 2. And that's the move where you die. A lot. Whether you have something cool to do or not. Your basic complaint seems to be like unto the complaint that trips are fairly likely to work on CR 7 Fairies even when you're a low level character.

It's true, but I don't care.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1121887356[/unixtime]]
Sure it is more often a good deal when you are a low-level screw head fighting along side of massively powerful dudes, but that's the situation in which you probably die whether you have something useful to do or not, so honestly I don't really care. And since this is a conentration-duration action, making yourself useful in this way is probably shortening your life expectency even more.

Well, considering that the low level guy isn't a PC but instead some PC's hireling or follower, I think it's important. I could really care less about a PC using this for the most part, because PCs are about the same level and fight monsters about their power level.

But when you can drag in some crappy 1st level illusionist and negate 50% of your opponent's offense with no drawback, that's just too much.

Unlike obscuring mist, an illusion like that affects both sides.

While that has the advantage of working at all, it has the drawback that you can no longer fight an illusionary opponent. In order to have an illusion respond to your actions, it has to be a glamer targetting you. Which means that everyone except you will see a ferocious monster attacking you. You'll se right through it.

Also, I'm puzzled at this. Why can't you fight an illusionary opponent? You simply say that the only thing figments can do is take actions like creatures can. That pretty much means your illusion can act as a creature. You can even allow it to take "aid another" actions as well if you just want it to be a distraction. All the creature action only thing prevents is cheesy 'called shot' style effects like putting a bucket over someone's head to blind them.

If you can't use an attack roll to put a bucket on someone's head you shouldn't be able to do it with an illusion either.

Basically you say illusions act as a creature with no strength (and thus incapable of inflicting any physical damage), a BaB equal to the caster's level, and dex equal to the caster's int, or whatever. Give it a movement rate of 40 or 50 or whatever, and make it incorporeal. Basically all they'll be doing is aid another actions and possibly aiding with flanking. Which is pretty much all an illusion should do anyway. If it can do anymore then it's now a shadow creature. If you wanted you could even give it some hp that it can take as damage before being disrupted. Obviously since it's incorporeal, you'd need a magic weapon to damage it. Then people could totally have fights with illusionary foes.

I think that would better represent what we commonly think of when we think of illusions, and eliminate all the cheesy 'illusionary box over the head' crap. That should just be a variant of the blindness spell, with a weird visual effect.

Btw blindness itself should be an illusion spell, as the effect is entirely on the visual senses of its target.

[Crissa]

However...

Are llusions just in the eye of the beholder, or are they holograms?

-Crissa

[dbb]

If an illusion is just in the eye of the beholder, it's a Mind-Affecting spell -- there's actually a specific subtype of illusion spells (Phantasms) that are explicitly "eye of the beholder" type effects.

A Figment (like Silent Image) is defined as being the same to everyone who sees it, rather than a "personalized mental impression". Since Phantasms are described as not "something you actually see", this argues rather strongly that Figments are "something you actually see", which would make them hologram-like.

Note that you could have a spell that worked like Silent Image and was a Phantasm -- you'd just have to make sure that it affected everyone in visual range.

--d.

[Crissa]

Then, if an illusion (figment) isn't just a trick of the mind, then it really is light and sound, and shouldn't it be an evocation?

And if it really is light and sound, why are you making a will save to disbelieve it?

-Crissa