Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wizard (Playtest 7)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9123300" data-attributes="member: 23484"><p>Here's something I started writing at the beginning of the playtest period (last August) about Illusion mafic, that I never finished.</p><p>[spoiler]Illusionist are awesome, or at least they should be. Unlike most wizard spell schools, the workings of the school of Illusion are the most subject to DM interpretation. I am hoping that One D&D will fix this: not nerfing the zany and fun opportunities that illusions present in play, but being clearer about how they work in combat.</p><p></p><p>The wording for low-level illusion spells outlines three common features (precise wording varies slightly, but doesn’t matter for now):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature.</li> </ul><p>I’ve marked these as separate points; the wording is not entirely clear that the first two are separate: Is using your action the same as “physical interaction”? I think not – these are two ways to determine whether something is an illusion: physical interaction or making a Intelligence (Investigation) check as an action. (In some spells versions of these sentences are in the same paragraph, in others different ones.) The result of either of these actions will be the third point: the ability to see through the illusion.</p><p></p><p>So we need a definition of “physical interaction”: we’re told “you can interact with one object…for free, during either your move or your action” (PHB 196), so you’re covered if you are physically adjacent to the illusion. Attacking the illusion at range should also count as physical interaction.</p><p></p><p>One improvement would be to Make Passive Investigation checks a thing. Currently only mentioned in the Observant feat, allowing a passive investigation check vs the Illusion’s DC should allow a “free” attempt to disbelieve, without the need of spending an action.[/spoiler]</p><p>Anyways, I know how I've DM'd and as a player I have mostly avoided illusions, even though they can be gonzo fun.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 9123300, member: 23484"] Here's something I started writing at the beginning of the playtest period (last August) about Illusion mafic, that I never finished. [spoiler]Illusionist are awesome, or at least they should be. Unlike most wizard spell schools, the workings of the school of Illusion are the most subject to DM interpretation. I am hoping that One D&D will fix this: not nerfing the zany and fun opportunities that illusions present in play, but being clearer about how they work in combat. The wording for low-level illusion spells outlines three common features (precise wording varies slightly, but doesn’t matter for now): [LIST] [*]Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. [*]A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. [*]If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature. [/LIST] I’ve marked these as separate points; the wording is not entirely clear that the first two are separate: Is using your action the same as “physical interaction”? I think not – these are two ways to determine whether something is an illusion: physical interaction or making a Intelligence (Investigation) check as an action. (In some spells versions of these sentences are in the same paragraph, in others different ones.) The result of either of these actions will be the third point: the ability to see through the illusion. So we need a definition of “physical interaction”: we’re told “you can interact with one object…for free, during either your move or your action” (PHB 196), so you’re covered if you are physically adjacent to the illusion. Attacking the illusion at range should also count as physical interaction. One improvement would be to Make Passive Investigation checks a thing. Currently only mentioned in the Observant feat, allowing a passive investigation check vs the Illusion’s DC should allow a “free” attempt to disbelieve, without the need of spending an action.[/spoiler] Anyways, I know how I've DM'd and as a player I have mostly avoided illusions, even though they can be gonzo fun. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wizard (Playtest 7)
Top