D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Major Image question

[Fete67]

So I was playing with my friends and I desided to protect our flank by casting Major image to create a fire wall. So the description is a will save will make who ever interacted with the illusion disbelieve. my question is if the target touches the wall of fire and fails it's will save will it believe that it touched a wall of fire? Will it then believe it caught on fire and how much damage would it most likely take, if any?

 

[Dandu]

If someone fails their will save, they will believe the wall of fire is real, but they cannot take actual damage from it. They may believe they have taken damage, or believe that they made their reflex save vs the fire spell and took no damage as a result of that, but under no circumstances will an actual change to their HP come into effect.

 

[Malachei]

Major Image is an Illusion (figment).

From the SRD:

Figment
A figment spell creates a false sensation. (...)

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. A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

(emphasis mine)

Also see Wizards of the Coast: Rules of the Game - All About Illusions for more information. Quote from the article:

For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything.

In many cases, the exact interpretation of illusions requires final DM judgment of the situation. Note that although the wall sheds off heat (Major Image includes thermal factors), depending on the nature of the interaction with the illusory wall, your DM may still rule that the interacting creature automatically disbelieves the illusion or gets a save bonus, because it did not suffer damage from the fire. If the creature would try to avoid the fire, Dandu's explanation of the creature assuming it has saved successfully may well apply. However, if the creature knows about the wall of fire spell (having the spell, having experienced the spell, or having a high spellcraft skill), it might note that passing through a wall of fire normally causes damage. Your DM might also rule that the creature believes the fire could have some other dangerous effect and disallow automatic disbelief.

If the creature had fire immunity, the creature may well have difficulties interacting with the illusion in a way that helps it disbelieve, because it will feel the heat but will not be surprised that there is no damage.

If the illusion is successfully disbelieved, the creature will still feel the thermal component and will still see, hear and smell the figment, but know it is harmless.

See also the rules on disbelieving in the SRD and part II and part III of the All About Illusions series of articles.

 

[Empirate]

I'd like to point out that nobody knows their HP total, just as a real person doesn't necessarily know whether they broke or merely twisted their ankle without doing an X-Ray first, or whether it's a cramp in their left arm or a heart attack coming on. Apart from the pain (which has no game effect), a character has no in-game method to verify or falsify the damaging effects of a Wall of Fire or other effect. The pain being caused by a Major Image of a Wall of Fire should be quite real, though, as the spell provides tactile and thermal elements.

So usually, a DM should handle it like this:

a) when the character is far from the illusionary Wall of Fire, they don't necessarily realise it isn't real. As long as they're not "interacting" with it (whatever that means), they don't receive a saving throw. Some DMs might interpret "looking" as "interacting", other might not.

b) when the character is close enough to the wall to usually take damage, they should make a Will save to see through the illusion. If the will save fails, they have no way to tell they haven't taken damage. If the character in question is a PC, the DM should tell them they have taken damage, and later allow them to realise they haven't.

c) when the character interacts with the illusion in a way that proves it as false (e.g. stick something flammable in, then pull it out again to see if it burns), they automatically realise it's an illusion. Depending on DM interpretation, the character might realise their clothes are not on fire, they don't trail smoke, their skin isn't reddened etc. after passing through the wall, thus automatically know the illusion for what it is. As a DM, I for one would only allow this after the character passed out of the Major Image's area (which is quite big).

 

[Particle_Man]

If the illusion is successfully disbelieved, the creature will still feel the thermal component and will still see, hear and smell the figment, but know it is harmless.

I think this is not true. A disbeliever sees a translucent outline, but no longer sees the figment in all its glory. I would assume the other senses are similarly no longer overwhelmed.

From the SRD: "A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. "

 

[Malachei]

Particle_Man: I agree that this is probably the best interpretation.

Emirates:

Although I like the statement of characters not knowing their hit point total, and also think that separating PC- and player knowledge is an important aspect of roleplaying, I don't agree completely. I think characters have a certain knowledge about their health and can tell pain from an inconvenience, but that is not my main point.

The SRD says:

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.

I think that the article by Skip Williams further explains that figment illusions are meant to distract and delay foes, not cause them to assume they have taken damage where actually they have been subject to an illusion (that would be the province of shadow magic which cause in part real damage and in part illusory damage). Skip Williams specifically says:

You can use a figment to fool opponents, but you can't harm them or affect them directly. For example, a wall of figment flames might cause foes to halt or make a detour, but it won't burn anything.

Therefore, IMO, they will feel the warmth, but as soon as they interact (see the article for some suggestions on how to interpret interaction), they will know it is unreal -- no blistering heat wounds, no hairs burning, no pain, no catching fire. The WOTC article even goes as far as stating that when interacting with an illusory guard, the

character makes the attack, using at least a standard action to do so. Hit or miss, the character makes a Will save to disbelieve the illusion immediately after making the attack roll.
If the attack hits, the character probably should disbelieve automatically

IMO, that is nerfing the illusion figment spells a bit too much, also because every attacker will almost always hit the bad AC of the figment. In my campaign, we just allow the save when the illusion is hit as a house rule (if the caster concentrates to let the illusion react appropriately). But I think by the WOTC explanation, any character touching an illusory wall of fire will notice it is not real, because they do not take damage.