Illusions and Enchantments

[merxa]

What opinions do people have on handling illusions and enchantments to be more fun and balanced in a typical ttrpg setting?

The basic paradigm for illusions of save for interactions seems ok, 'interaction' becoming the operative condition and doing all the heavy lifting. Other issues with illusions being either too easy or too difficult to identify, spells like true seeing obliterating the school entirely half way through the game.

Enchantments have similar issues, but I think they especially suffer from the general difficulty that casting a spell in front of someone is often grounds for rolling initiative. And if SoS spells aren't especially fun, Save or Kill your Friends is doubly unfun and even more difficult to balance. Enchantments should probably have more gradations of control.

[DrPraetor]

I assume you're importing D&D here? Shadowrun has both phantasms and control manipulations, and both are powerful, but they're not that hard to adjudicate, and lots of things in Shadowrun are powerful.

Enchantments in D&D are easier to adjudicate but obviously broken. I mean, Charm Person is -1 guy to their team and +1 guy to your team, right? Easier is not the say as easy: When it wears off, does the victim realize they've been mind-raped automatically? If not, do you infect them with stockholm syndrome or quietly murder them or what? No one wants to go there.

Illusions are a bitch to adjudicate - it's been known since the 1970s that with clever magical tea party, and some advance notice, the illusionist just wins against anything that isn't immune. If I had behind and illusionary wall and throw rocks, are my targets interacting with the illusion? As you say, 'interaction' is both doing all the heavy lifting and it's such a pain to adjudicate that most groups I've been in don't even want to have illusionists.

[Foxwarrior]

I think the actual biggest conceptual problem with illusions is that there's never nearly enough information to decide what a creature thinks is believable.

The gnome with the robes and the books goes up to the orc camp and causes a horde of unicorns that fart rainbows to appear. All four of the following should probably be possible, but what should the probabilities be?

* The orcs think it's real, and promptly surrender because they correctly recognize the gnome as a high level wizard.

* The orcs think it's real, and promptly surrender, which makes the gnome giggle inside because he's weaker than one orc.

* The orcs think it's fake, and charge, slaughtering the wimpy gnome.

* The orcs think it's fake, and charge, dying horribly to the unicorns.

The orcs thinking it's fake is always going to feel kind of contrived if they never think real things are fake, is the main problem.

[Foxwarrior]

Or wait, is disbelief if interacted with supposed to mean that if you make an illusion of something, everyone who sees it 100% believes that it's definitely real and not an illusion, no matter how stupid, until they interact with the illusion?

[OgreBattle]

What opinions do people have on handling illusions and enchantments to be more fun and balanced in a typical ttrpg setting?

The basic paradigm for illusions of save for interactions seems ok, 'interaction' becoming the operative condition and doing all the heavy lifting. Other issues with illusions being either too easy or too difficult to identify, spells like true seeing obliterating the school entirely half way through the game.

Enchantments have similar issues, but I think they especially suffer from the general difficulty that casting a spell in front of someone is often grounds for rolling initiative. And if SoS spells aren't especially fun, Save or Kill your Friends is doubly unfun and even more difficult to balance. Enchantments should probably have more gradations of control.

If illusions are more for buying time than murdering the target, then "you eventually figure out it's an illusion" works out better

Shadowrun's clear parameters of what different illusions are and how to interact with them helps greatly

[deaddmwalking]

In standard D&D, an illusion is basically a waste of your time. It's not real, can't really be killed, and can't hurt you if you ignore it.

Changing the last part tends to fix illusions. If you create an illusion of a dragon (especially if you're low level) you can't expect it to fight as well as a real dragon, but making it able to fight like a level-appropriate Eidolon gives it something to do and a reason not to ignore it completely.

Giving illusions substance also helps explain why people can't just 'walk through a wall they know is an illusion'.

This of course only works with the illusions that everyone sees, not the things that exist only in your own mind.

In our heartbreaker, 'solid illusions' are shadow spells and the things you see in your own mind are a different school that includes all of the mind-control/emotional manipulation spells.

[Username17]

Dungeons & Dragons normally has combat rounds that are six seconds long. As noted, enemies simply do not spend a lot of time ignoring actual player characters or jumping through walls of fire because they don't believe in them. The ability to control the vertical and the horizontal is simply extremely powerful. Even the simplest effect of making dozens of additional archer illusions or something to act as a sort of high-grade regenerating mirror image for the entire party is something that should obviously work and would clearly be a winning move in almost any conceivably level appropriate encounter.

Trid Phantasm in Shadowrun just does that and we all accept that. The writing is clear and concise and no one is confused about how it works or what it does. The rules are streamlined and it simply does that. It's pretty close to an 'I Win' button in most firefights that would otherwise be remotely close. And it's fine because actions in that game are very effective when taken by specialist characters.

Illusions of the broadly and radically redefinable variety are fine if and only if the cost of using them is comparable to selectively blinding all the opposition or something equally drastic.

-Username17

[Foxwarrior]

If you create an illusion of a dragon (especially if you're low level) you can't expect it to fight as well as a real dragon, but making it able to fight like a level-appropriate Eidolon gives it something to do and a reason not to ignore it completely.

Your fix for illusions... is to make them real?

[deaddmwalking]

If you create an illusion of a dragon (especially if you're low level) you can't expect it to fight as well as a real dragon, but making it able to fight like a level-appropriate Eidolon gives it something to do and a reason not to ignore it completely.

Your fix for illusions... is to make them real?

Pretty much. For some definitions of the word 'real'.

What does it mean to have a wall that you can't jump through because you 'believe it is there'? I can't think of any situations where 'not there at all' is preferable to 'mostly not there'. As long as you can fall through an illusory bridge, being able to interact with it (ie touch it) is fine.

Since we're talking about magic and things like a phantasmal killer can kill you dead, it's not so weird to think that illusions can have meaningful interactions with the physical world. Ultimately, it seems to solve a lot of problems (and resulting table arguments) about what is 'reasonable' for an illusion to accomplish.

[Kaelik]

If you create an illusion of a dragon (especially if you're low level) you can't expect it to fight as well as a real dragon, but making it able to fight like a level-appropriate Eidolon gives it something to do and a reason not to ignore it completely.

Your fix for illusions... is to make them real?

Yeah, Illusions can be really powerful and there is definitely a lot of working it out involved, but I do not want Illusions to be real creatures or walls, that is the exact opposite of what I want my illusions to be.

[merxa]

Shadow magic making illusions semi real is cool, but that probably should be more powerful then unreal illusions. Either coming online at higher levels, be available as metamagic enhancements or something similar.

For duplicates and such, 'interaction' could include looking at them. 5e makes many illusions concentration, which greatly limits what else a spellcaster can do.

D&d also has a number of hard counters that make such illusions less powerful later on, special senses like blindsense.

Illusions are probably a good example of tiers and the arms race that it can result in.

Low level is visuals vs perception, hard counters being extra senses and perhaps arcane sight.
Mid level can mimic smells, heat, defeating scent but maybe not blindsight. Overcomes arcane sight but not true seeing
High level are shadow infused, defeating blindsight abilities, perhaps even overcoming true seeing unless it's upcasted or maybe it has an enchantment save rider that compluses someone to believe in them.

[Dogbert]

In standard D&D, an illusion is basically a waste of your time. It's not real, can't really be killed, and can't hurt you if you ignore it.

That's not what my last DM would tell you considering how many grudge encounters of his I crippled or outright shut down with illusions.

[K]

Weirdly, DnD contains both the worst and best examples of illusions. The worst is the ones that let you control the horizontal and the vertical. Imagination leads to insta-win, or the DM nerfs it into uselessness.

The best is spells like Mirror Image. It clearly defines what it does, it defines exactly how it fools people, and it defines mechanics for figuring it out (in this case, stabbing until you hit the real guy).

"Do anything" is a bad mechanic. Limits are what create balance and fun.

The hard part is coming up with interesting things for illusions to do that don't look like other spells. I mean, is a Fear spell substantially different from an illusion designed to route a group of enemies, through fear? Is an illusionary wall designed to hide an entrance substantially different from a wall of stone spell? Is an illusion monster different from a summoned monster?

Honestly, the schools of magic idea is shit. In most games, it's cosmetics.

[Emerald]

I mean, is a Fear spell substantially different from an illusion designed to route a group of enemies, through fear? Is an illusionary wall designed to hide an entrance substantially different from a wall of stone spell? Is an illusion monster different from a summoned monster?

...obviously yes?

A fear-inducing spell that has a visual effect of an illusory dragon can be used to convince people there's a dragon around--and at a range of line of sight rather than a fear spell's range--in a way a purely mental effect can't. An illusory wall can be easily passed through when no one's looking, used as a hiding place for an ambush, or the like in a way that a physical wall can't. One can make illusions of creatures that one can't (yet) summon to let a non-minionmaster appear to have an undead army, an evil vizier appear to be summoning angels, an apprentice appear to be summoning a powerful fiend, and so on, and once "summoned" an illusory creature doesn't interfere with one's allies' line of sight or movement.

You're definitely right that open-ended "do whatever and let the DM figure things out" illusions are a bad thing, but even very limited illusion spells that kinda feel like illusory versions of other spells like illusory wall, legion of sentinels, project image, and the like can be very handy, before you even get to the non-duplicating ones like ghost sound or illusory script. Often fairly niche and weak against enemies with nonstandard senses, certainly, but still worth having.

[Hicks]

2e DnD illusions did illusory damage when made into damaging effects and monsters, and i believe the wizard rolled their normal attack rolls for any summoned monster illusion. If you made your save vs. spell then you were clued into that it was an illusion and it could no longer damage you, and if you shouted it out anybody cod take their when combat round to attempt to disbelieve the illusion with a +4 to their save. Illusory damage wasnt real damage; the DM tracked how much illusory damage a creature took, and creatures still went unconscious at 0hp, but after a full minute (or one combat round) the illusory damage would go away and the creature would wake up.

Phantasmal Force (2e's silent image) would not have sound, smell, texture, or thermal elements, and might therefore clue players and monsters into thinking it might be an illusion and get your enemies trying to waste a round attempting to disbelieve. Spectral Force (2e's major image) had no such tells. A caster could duplicate any spell or monster they knew of and their Mark's could be knocked out with dragon breath or whatever.

For the players side, the DM has to roll at least the interaction saves in secret, but I'm ambivalent about a player rolling their own disbelief save. Of course creatures can attempt to disbelieve every round... but honestly enemies wasting turns not hurting the party is kinda the point of casting illusions in the first place.

I honestly would bring illusory damage back for 3.tome, any attack roll required could be the casters CL + casting modifier, and just do the damage of the creature or effect in illusory damage. Making a silent great red wurm dragon at first level to breathe illusory fire on your enemies may seem OP, but every one of the enemies gets a save go ignore the illusion because they're interacting with it and even when "killed" just gets back up after 1 round.

[OgreBattle]

For the players side, the DM has to roll at least the interaction saves in secret, but I'm ambivalent about a player rolling their own disbelief save. Of course creatures can attempt to disbelieve every round... but honestly enemies wasting turns not hurting the party is kinda the point of casting illusions in the first place.

I honestly would bring illusory damage back for 3.tome, any attack roll required could be the casters CL + casting modifier, and just do the damage of the creature or effect in illusory damage. Making a silent great red wurm dragon at first level to breathe illusory fire on your enemies may seem OP, but every one of the enemies gets a save go ignore the illusion because they're interacting with it and even when "killed" just gets back up after 1 round.

Weirdly, DnD contains both the worst and best examples of illusions. The worst is the ones that let you control the horizontal and the vertical. Imagination leads to insta-win, or the DM nerfs it into uselessness.

The best is spells like Mirror Image. It clearly defines what it does, it defines exactly how it fools people, and it defines mechanics for figuring it out (in this case, stabbing until you hit the real guy).

Come to think of it, can a mirror image be 'disbelieved'? If not, then what's the in-game explanation of why that's different from a bunch of silent images being disbelieved?

I figure the 'disbelieve' rule is a core part of what makes D&D illusions wonky. Say a 'real life illusion' is wearing masks on the back of your head to make a tiger think it cant sneak behind you:



The tiger doesn't roll to disbelieve the mask, the mask doesn't ploof away if it's realized to be a mask. The tiger's gotta roll to figure out it's a disguise.

Consistency in world lore for illusion vectors is also important, Naruto's got a list of how genjutsu is delivered, broken: https://naruto.fandom.com/wiki/Genjutsu though at the highest level sheer mystic power can rerwite reality

Buddhist stories of illusionary/psychic attacks...


They often look like Dragon Ball ki battles:

[Username17]

Weirdly, DnD contains both the worst and best examples of illusions. The worst is the ones that let you control the horizontal and the vertical. Imagination leads to insta-win, or the DM nerfs it into uselessness.

The best is spells like Mirror Image. It clearly defines what it does, it defines exactly how it fools people, and it defines mechanics for figuring it out (in this case, stabbing until you hit the real guy).

"Do anything" is a bad mechanic. Limits are what create balance and fun.

The hard part is coming up with interesting things for illusions to do that don't look like other spells. I mean, is a Fear spell substantially different from an illusion designed to route a group of enemies, through fear? Is an illusionary wall designed to hide an entrance substantially different from a wall of stone spell? Is an illusion monster different from a summoned monster?

Honestly, the schools of magic idea is shit. In most games, it's cosmetics.

Basically yes to all of that.

In an ideal world, if you were going to make a new edition then you'd have a Necromancer and an Illusionist because those are shticks people want when it comes to magic. But the actual effects that magic offers are wholly arbitrary and you can make any effect you want feel like it 'belongs' to either magician type just by flavoring it up with the appropriate amounts of skull motifs or swirlies.

If you think about these magics in terms of what they'd do in a card game or a computer game, you immediately realize that skeleton minions and illusionary soldiers are just reskins. And that a scary illusion and a wave of fear are just reskins. And that phantasmal killer and finger of death are just reskins and so on and so on. Any effect you could justify as necromantic magic you could justify as illusion magic and vice versa.

What abilities you choose to actually give your necromancer and illusionist and what the costs of using those abilities are questions of game design rather than theme. If you decide that Illusionists should get the ability to make decoys that use up more enemy attacks and Necromancers should get the ability to make skeletons that do more damage to the enemy, that is a decision based on game balance and roles and shit; because you could have just as easily have decided that Necromancers make lumbering defensive meat walls of zombies and Illusionists make deadly phantasms that put damage on the board.

You want Necromancers and Illusionists, because those are popular themes. But both themes are broad enough that when you're doing your actual game design you can use either flavor for essentially any cloth wearer ability set you feel like.

And yes, the open ended 'Control the Horizontal and the Vertical' effect is powerful enough that it's only appropriate in a rocket launcher tag scenario where everyone else is also expected to have 'I Win' buttons and it's basically just a race to decide who can press theirs first. For example:

Phantasmal Force (2e's silent image) would not have sound, smell, texture, or thermal elements, and might therefore clue players and monsters into thinking it might be an illusion and get your enemies trying to waste a round attempting to disbelieve.

The problem with this entire line of thinking is that D&D also has Shadows. Extremely deadly monsters that naturally don't make any noise and which it is totally normal for weapons to pass through without any evident effect.

Once people remembered the existence of the naturally silent incorporeal undead, Phantasmal Force was simply ridiculous. Functionally equivalent to summon monster, except you could summon as many monsters as you wanted for as long as you kept concentrating.

There's room for the Illusionist to do anything, but not for them to have a single power that does literally anything. Combat illusions need to have concrete effects.

-Username17