Illusion Magic: I Don't Believe This Crap

[RobbyPants]

It's all a matter of where you draw your lines, and it looks like a lot of them are being drawn arbitrarily to try to prevent some abuses. I don't think it's working all that effectively, though.

Yes, they were drawn arbitrarily to try and prevent abuse, I cop to that. Why don't you think they work, and how can they work better without being overly complex?

Well, maybe they do work regarding touch.

I still think the not being able to hit them in combat thing is overly punitive, though. I think it's okay if MC says "you miss" or "you don't feel your attack connect", which could mean that the guy is benefiting form some concealment effect, so it doesn't necessarily mean he's an illusion. It's up to the player to interpret those results, but I still think it should be allowed to happen.

EDITED TO ADD:

I forgot about the whole "somebody proves it's an illusion" thing. If someone else recognizes an illusion and shouts "hey you guys, these things aren't real!", you can reroll saves for sensory failure...maybe you thought it was a really quiet orc before, but if Bob says it's an illusion, it might make you think twice. If there is no sensory issue, you don't get another save unless that person does something pretty convincing (like, waves his hand around in the orc's head)...in which case you should probably get a save, maybe at a +4 bonus or something. If someone spends multiple rounds shoving his head in the illusory wall of fire, you should probably get to auto-save even if you don't personally go touch it.

Why do you even need a save? If someone tells me the illusionary orc is an illusion, why do I even need to make a save?

- You already said the illusion persists as an opaque illusion regardless of whether or not you believe it, so there's no benefit to a successful save.

- Figments can't actually harm people, so there's no penalty for simply ignoring the orc.

Once an ally says "it's an illusion", you can ignore it at not penalty, to the extra save thing is really moot.

[norms29]

Why do you even need a save? If someone tells me the illusionary orc is an illusion, why do I even need to make a save?

- You already said the illusion persists as an opaque illusion regardless of whether or not you believe it, so there's no benefit to a successful save.

- Figments can't actually harm people, so there's no penalty for simply ignoring the orc.

Once an ally says "it's an illusion", you can ignore it at not penalty, to the extra save thing is really moot.

that's only the case if you trust your allies judgement more than your own. enough more than your own that you'll take whatever risk comes with ignoring the illusion

[RobbyPants]

that's only the case if you trust your allies judgement more than your own. enough more than your own that you'll take whatever risk comes with ignoring the illusion

Except that you don't have to roll a will save to see if a real guy is really real. The only time this comes up is in illusions. Your fellow PCs are never going to fail a Will save and assume the real orc is an illusion. Ever. So if they're telling you it's an illusion (and you don't think they're secretly trying to kill you), then you can just safely ignore the orc.

[tzor]

Why do you even need a save? If someone tells me the illusionary orc is an illusion, why do I even need to make a save?

You know, this is really the point to put in the obligatory Star Trek quote. "The bullets are not real." All it takes is a single doubt for the bullets to kill. That may be overkill in terms of this example, but looking at a magical special effect, can you really believe your friend? Perhaps, perhaps not. Roll required.

[Wrathzog]

Once an ally says "it's an illusion", you can ignore it at not penalty, to the extra save thing is really moot.

I disagree. Like norms said, it'll depend on the level of trust you have with your party... but even if you know that illusions exist and you understand how they work, it's still hard to ignore what your senses are telling you about the world.
Which is *GASP* what the will save is for.

You know what's fun? Combining illusions with charm and domination effects. Your players can't trust anyone, not even themselves.

[PoliteNewb]

Re: your friends telling you about illusions.

The main thing is, I was looking out for PC illusionists. If pointing out an illusion means you automatically know, then when you're facing 20 guys and 1 of them makes their save, it's like they all make their saves. That sucks.

Because as I (and others have said), ignore the metagame: from a real-life point of view, how much do you trust the guy over there telling you, "yeah, you can ignore that sword coming at your jugular...it's not real!". How the fuck does he know? In game terms, you (the player) know that you never mistake real things for illusions and that what your fellow players are saying is most likely true. But how does the character, be he PC or NPC, know that?

You totally can mistake real things for illusions...as others have said, that noiseless orc coming at you could be a Silent Image...or it could just be an Orc with a silence spell or a really good stealth check. If your buddy says, "he's an illusion"...how can you be sure? Sure enough that you'll turn your back on him and let him stab his possibly-real blade into you?

Now, RobbyPants pointed out an alternate way to do this...just let PCs or NPCs tell you things aren't real, and let the player decide how much he trusts them. But whether or not this is a reasonable way of handling things depends on how the DM handles interpersonal relations. I don't mind PCs auto-trusting each other (as I said before), but unless the DM puts in situations where people mistake real things for illusions (or lie about it), PCs are going to be auto-trusting anybody, and that's kinda shit. Worse, the DM has to make decisions about how much every NPC enemy trusts his comrades, and that's kind of a pain. A saving throw is an easy way to handle it.

Re: touches in combat

Again, I was trying not to nerf too hard. If all you have to do to know the orc is fake is make an attack roll vs. AC 10, that takes a lot of the wind out of illusions' sails. Your suggestion, where the DM says "you don't feel your attack hit" would probably be fine...you don't tell them it's an illusion, but you let them draw their own conclusions when they keep missing what should be an easy target. I'm just saying, trying to fight an illusory orc is not going to automatically let you know it's fake in the same way that just trying to walk through him will.

[RobbyPants]

I understand what you're saying about the Will save approximating you being able to ignore your own senses. This can work in a scenario where you're just dealing with illusions, but of course, that's not really a threat.

Now, if you're dealing with mixed groups of illusions and real monsters and one guy makes his save, even if you fail yours, you can still pick which monsters you fight. So you fight the ones you think are real. Assuming you can only fight one monster at a time, then there's no downside to this. The figments can't harm you, and sure, even if they miss every attack for five rounds, you don't know they're illusions.

I just honestly don't see it making any difference in actual game play.

[Ice9]

I just honestly don't see it making any difference in actual game play.

For PCs resisting illusions, maybe it doesn't. But for NPCs, it certainly does. Here's the situation:

* PC makes an illusion of a purple worm busting up from the ground and charging toward the castle gates.
* Of the 20 guards there, 19 fail their saves, one of them makes it.
* The one guy who saw through it shouts "Wait, it isn't real!"

With these rules:
One or two other guards trust the first enough to hold their ground, the rest say "screw that!" and retreat inside.

With "free disbelief":
All the guards ignore it. Better not use illusions against more than 3-4 people.

[Ice9]

If you need a concrete reason that people might not always trust in the illusionality of something, then these may come in handy:

Spell: Illusory Coating
Covers an actual creature or object with an illusion of ... itself, but slightly less realistic, so that it appears to be purely an illusion.

Feat: Figment Shell
As long as you have an illusion spell prepared, you can apply a shell of illusion around any evocation or conjuration (summoning) spell (anything you could cast with Shadow Evocation/Conjuration). This causes the spell to appear illusory.


Someone else can figure out the exact mechanics for these, if they care. What would make sense (but might be too fiddly) is a save mechanic like:
* Fail by 5+ : Completely oblivious, think it's real.
* Fail or Succeed by 1-4 : Believe that it's an illusion.
* Succeed by 5+ : Realize that it's a real thing with an illusion wrapper.

You could also implement this as two saves, one at DC -5, one at DC +5.

[RobbyPants]

I just honestly don't see it making any difference in actual game play.

For PCs resisting illusions, maybe it doesn't. But for NPCs, it certainly does.

That makes more sense.

From the PCs standpoint, you have to throw real and illusionary foes at them if you want there to be a threat. But you're right about your example. You need it to work like that if you want to try and drive people away.

Okay, I'm sold on the Will save.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Re: touches in combat
...

The characters also have to consider the possibility of a blink spell or something. Hitting an illusion's touch AC in combat should count as interaction.

[RobbyPants]

Re: touches in combat
...

The characters also have to consider the possibility of a blink spell or something. Hitting an illusion's touch AC in combat should count as interaction.

I like that idea: hit it and get a new Will save.

[Hicks]

So there. My assumption is and has always been that illusions can actually create sound and light.

It's good that you realize this assumption. The next step is to test your assumption - whether it is compatible with what the game mechanics say about illusions, specifically (Figment) and (Glamer) illusions.

Here's the relevant text:

A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

Now, with your assumption, the illusion would be projecting light which would then reflect off of surfaces and sound which would disturb objects (for instance, if there was very fine sand or dust). But that would be a real effect - you could rig the system to trigger indirectly off the disturbance of dust, and have wide-ranging consequences.

This seems to make the spell true seeing completely irrelevant, as a 100% true test of what is real is wether or not it has a reflection in a hand mirror or if a magnifying lens failed to distort what you viewed it with.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Funky Glasses: These glasses give you a -2 penalty on search and spot checks to detect non-illusory things, and allow you a will save against any visual illusion you behold as though you were interacting with it.
Weight: 1/10th lb
Price: 500gp

[K]

So how much money do we need to send you?

+1

Hey, get in line -- I'm still waiting for his $8, 100 page, level 1-20 D&D adventure path.

I am flattered by the vote of confidence.

I'm doing a writing project right now. Depending how well that goes, it'll determine what I write next.

Since space opera is poorly represented in RPGs, I might work on that afterwards with a Kickstarter project to get some real art.

[RobbyPants]

This seems to make the spell true seeing completely irrelevant, as a 100% true test of what is real is wether or not it has a reflection in a hand mirror or if a magnifying lens failed to distort what you viewed it with.

Well, this means True Seeing is a very expensive way to test figments, but it's still useful for a lot of other things that you can't easily test with a mirror or magnifying glass... like most of the rest of the entire school of Illusion.

[Aharon]

What do you think about this set of rules on interacting with illusions by Skip Williams?