D&D (2024) Wizard (Playtest 7)

[Yaarel]

Thanks for this. Why I like the idea of a Passive Investigation is that by calling for a roll, the DM makes the player suspicious, and it will change the action (and slow the game). A passive check allows the DM to say, at the start of the character's turn (maybe after others have gone) "The door is a dim outline, and you see three goblins with shortbows standing in the doorway."

It means the DM isn't describing the PC's mental state (you think something's amiss...) andthere's a clear response for player illusions (without "one of the orcs is naturally suspicious"). The passive check solves all of that.

Yes. But.

A passive check is problematic in the sense, characters (PCs and monsters) with high Intelligence become defacto immune to illusions.

Ideally, I would like any character to potentially fall for an illusion.

Most helpful is determining when a character becomes suspicious.

Dealing with illusions is similar to dealing with traps. I dont want traps to be auto-detected. But also, I dont want a game of paranoid "ten foot poles".

I want rules that are clear but excellent.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

with high Intelligence become defacto immune to illusions.

Monsters with high intelligence AND proficiency in Investigation are rare enough that I think it would be ok.

I mean, there's litteraly 3 monsters with prof in Investigation in the MM and they dont have much Intelligence.

You'd have to go to something like CR 20+ monsters to find creatures able to automatically clear the illusions of a low level illusionist (frex, a lich would have a passive Investigation of only 15).

And I dont think there's many adventurer attacking great wyrms with Minor Illusion....

 

[Kobold Stew]

I want rules that are clear but excellent.

On this we agree!

It's a tough nut (= it's magic).

Another test case to think about it is the Int 10 Arcane Trickster. How good are their illusions? Never trained, some thief suddenly discovers that they can make shapes and rough outlines of monsters. Are these harder or easier to get by? RAW, it's requires the same time. With a passive Investigation, they are easier to just bypass.

Don't get me wrong -- the fun of a lame illusionist is real. But should it always take an action to get past? (I note that by giving gnomes a choice of spellcasting stat in the playtest docs, a gnome can have a lwo Int and still be good at illusions. I like that.)

EDIT: The one mention of Passive Investigation is in the Observant feat. I tink an Observant character should be able to see through illusions more easily.

 

[Yaarel]

@Kobold Stew and @Tales and Chronicles

Maybe I am ok with a Passive Investigation triggering "suspicion" about an illusion, but not with it seeing thru the illusion.

Even then, I am left with the problem of determining when monsters who failed the Passive Investigation might become suspicious afterward.

Another test case to think about it is the Int 10 Arcane Trickster. How good are their illusions? Never trained, some thief suddenly discovers that they can make shapes and rough outlines of monsters. Are these harder or easier to get by? RAW, it's requires the same time. With a passive Investigation, they are easier to just bypass.

It depends on what an illusion is.

If an illusion is an artwork, then a successful illusion would require the Illusionist to make a Performance check to determine how realistic the illusion is.

As-is, the magic of illusion spells seems to form perfect images − so perfect, even a Perception check wont notice a flaw. So an illusion spell seems more like a magical photograph, sotospeak: the image is perfect.

Even an novice Trickster would still magic a perfect illusion with regard to the image itself. It would be other kinds of tell, that alert the viewer that something is off.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

@Kobold Stew and @Tales and Chronicles

Maybe I am ok with a Passive Investigation triggering "suspicion" about an illusion, but not with it seeing thru the illusion.

My take:

- If a monster's passive beats the illusion's DC, it is automatically known as an illusion. They still have to take an action to reveal and dissipate the illusion for others, but they will ignore it themselves.

- A monster whose passive dont beat the DC will believe the illusion is true. Now, the creature can get suspicious if the illusion dont match the context or setting; it is now more of a roleplay thing based on the creature's intelligence. A suspicious creature will take their action to investigate and disbelieve the illusion.

- A creature who is aware of the illusion, but did not dissipate it with an action is still impacted by the illusion if it interacts with sight line and covers.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I am loving this discussion, and want to think about it more before responding further. Thanks. This is productive. (And exactly what I think the rulebooks need).

 

[Mistwell]

I find this version of the wizard boring. The prior UA on them was overpowered had a lot of loopholes, so it was rightly rejected. But I very much would have preferred another pass at one or both of the new features from the prior UA to fix those loopholes and abusive results rather than just junking them and not really replacing they with anything.

 

[Stalker0]

On this we agree!

It's a tough nut (= it's magic).

I don't think its all that tough to be honest. Again we don't need every illusionary instance to be hammered out, just some clear guidelines:

• What are some general ways a person might "interact" with an illusion?
• At what point does a person get to "interact" with an illusion? When they do, what kind of check or save do they get?
  • Does this change depending on when/where the caster makes the illusion? (aka in combat versus the illusion was there when the party arrives).
  • Can a person attempt multiple times to "disbelieve". If so, what conditions allow for another attempt?
• What does informing a person that something is an illusion do....auto check, auto pass, nothing at all?
• When an illusion is disbelieved, do I see clearly through it? (aka the classic illusionary wall scenario, can people that know its an illusion see through it and attack, whereas people that haven't can't see through it). Can I still tell what the illusion is doing, or does it just vanish from my senses?
• Can an illusion of light create light? (a commonly asked question), or would a person automatically see through this because it doesn't actually illuminate?
• If your making an illusion that talks, are any skill checks required to make the illusion pass as "believable".

If you answered that list, it would cover a LOT of illusionary scenarios, but still give teh illusionist plenty of freedom to create various things.

 

[Yaarel]

My take:

- If a monster's passive beats the illusion's DC, it is automatically known as an illusion. They still have to take an action to reveal and dissipate the illusion for others, but they will ignore it themselves.

I didnt notice that the Investigation check would dissipate the illusion "for others". That is interesting. So the Investigation check is more like using a Slight Of Hand check to "disarm" a trap.

Thinking about an illusion that way kinda helps.

- A monster whose passive dont beat the DC will believe the illusion is true.

But as DM, I am still unsure when the monster should, afterward, become suspicious. Whether I decide a monster does investigate it or I decide the monster doesnt investigate it, either way it feels completely arbitrary DM fiat.

Now, the creature can get suspicious if the illusion dont match the context or setting; it is now more of a roleplay thing based on the creature's intelligence. A suspicious creature will take their action to investigate and disbelieve the illusion.

I assume, the illusion mismatching the context or setting, is what the Passive Investigation check was determining in the first place? So, when to make an Active Investigation check remains unclear to me.

- A creature who is aware of the illusion, but did not dissipate it with an action is still impacted by the illusion if it interacts with sight line and covers.

That sounds excellent. The suspicious observer still needs to "disarm" the illusion sotospeak.

 

[Parmandur]

I find this version of the wizard boring. The prior UA on them was overpowered had a lot of loopholes, so it was rightly rejected. But I very much would have preferred another pass at one or both of the new features from the prior UA to fix those loopholes and abusive results rather than just junking them and not really replacing they with anything.

WotC isn't reworking anything that isn't getting a satisfactory rating.