D&D 4E 4E Illusions?

[KarinsDad]

Do you think 4E will clean up illusions?

The 3E attempt, although admirable, came up short.

Illusions need a "touch" component, along with visual, auditory, smell, etc.

Illusions need "real light", "real sound", "real smell". By real, I mean that they have to have real effects and seem to be real. What good is a figment that has no real components, and then has a real effect anyway (like Mirror Images which really does have a game effect)?

Dancing Lights went from the school of Illusion to the school of Evocation, just because of the silly figments cannot be real rule. Ghost Sounds did not, but it's really the exact same type of spell, just sound instead of light.

Illusions need to do real damage.

Illusions need decent ACs.

Making a save on an illusion should not leave a "translucent outline", rather it should allow the viewer to know that it is an illusion and he can act accordingly. A save for an illusion of a floor over a real pit should not result in the character being able to see into the pit, rather he should not be able to see into the pit because there is this visual illusion above it and in the way. He merely knows there is a fake looking illusion (to him) over something, he does not know if it is a pit, the normal floor, a trap, or what.


In other words, Illusions have to appear real if a save is failed (assuming 4E still has saves).

They need to appear fake, but still visible, still audible, etc. if the save is made.

A failed illusion should be no different than a failed mundane disguise. The disguise does not change, just because someone recognizes it as a disguise.


Anyway, JMO. I hope WotC cleans this up. Unlike most other spell game mechanics, Illusions tend to have problems and are not used by players that often because of it.

 

[Hussar]

I can agree that illusions are problematic, but, I think the problem lies in a slightly different direction.

Unlike every other spell in the book, illusions can do anything. A fireball is always a 40 foot ball of flame. Period. A Summon Monster X can call A, B or C monster. But, an illusion spell can appear to be anything and that makes them so hard to adjudicate.

Players shy away from illusions because they're a right royal PITA. They rely too much on the DM not metagaming his bad guys. And, when you get right down to it, given the choice between making an illusionary fireball or making a real one, which would you choose?

 

[Stalker0]

Hopefully in 4E they will provide more examples and clean up the language to make illusions easier to use. I disagree they need to be more "real", and I pray that they remove the clunky X% real of the shadow spells mechanics. They just need to be clearer to use so players and dms can have reasonable expectations on what they can do.

That said, I hope that doesn't mean they will make illusions so cookie cutter it takes all the fun out of them.

 

[KarinsDad]

And, when you get right down to it, given the choice between making an illusionary fireball or making a real one, which would you choose?

If Fireball were a third level spell and Illusioned Fireball were a first level spell that could still do 5D6 damage (if a will save and a reflex save were failed for example), as a player I might go with the first level spell sometimes.

It all depends on how the game mechanics were cleaned up. If simple mechanics were introduced that allowed DMs to adjudicate illusions the same way as they adjudicate other game elements, the concept of "it can be anything" might become less of an issue.

For example, if the 3rd level Illusion spell allowed for an AC up to 18, it wouldn't matter if it were an illusion of an Owlbear or an illusion of an Ooze. The caster would be limited to a max AC of 18. He might make it less for the Ooze, just to make it seem more real. But, he wouldn't have to. Ditto for the amount of damage. Ditto for "to hit". Ditto for movement. Ditto for special attacks, etc.

The caster could make an illusion of any monster in the MM, but the max AC would be x, the max movement would be y, the max hit points would be z, etc., regardless of what the actual stats of the monster might be.

Ditto for illusions of spells. One elegant way to adjudicate illusionary spells is to allow them to have more defenses than normal spells. If the caster gets past all of the defenses (or the defender fails all of the saves or whatever), the illusionary spell might work exactly like the normal spell. Otherwise, it might be limited to 60% of effect or some such like the Shadow spells. This balances the versatility of the illusionary spell with the fact that it doesn't always work at full power.

 

[Mad Mac]

Illusions just need to have specific effects. More illusions like Mirror Image, Invisibility, ect with a defined effect, instead of stuff like the silent image line of spells whose functionality ultimately comes down to wether the DM feels like throwing you a bone today.

You can argue it hurts creativity, but those spells are mostly used for a few specific things, anyway--as pretend attack or summoning spells most of the time, with the odd attempt to disguise something or create an image of Sir Important Pants and such.

 

[Greg K]

I want to see shadow divorced completely from illusions. I want just a few spells. sight, smell, hearing, touch, spells that combine elements, and a spell for directly placing illusions into a target's mind for dealing damage. No more individual spells where one specific spell is necessary for making someone look like an undead corpse and another for making them think they look like something else entirely- just one spell for changing how a target is perceived visually.

 

[Mad Mac]

I want to see illusions seperated more by effect than components. So if you're trying to make an illusion of something to scare bad guys, that's one spell, and the player and the DM can work together to describe something appropriate rather than the player and DM trying to play Orc psychology games with stuff like "Fiendish badgers just make Grok Warslug happy in his pants. The illusion has no effect."

 

[IceFractal]

So you're saying they should just make illusions the "special effect" of a fear/damaging/whatever spell? Pardon me if I say

Illusion spells are one of the few remaining bastions of creativity in spell use. The point is that they don't have exactly X effect - the effect is down to how you use them. Polymorph had this too, but due to its various problems, it seems extremely likely it will be reduced to a standardized combat buff, or a bunch of single-form spells. But illusion spells have a chance, because they combine fairly uniform mechanics with an unlimited array of effects.

And for that matter, illusions aren't weak, they just require a bit more involvement in their use. With, say, a fireball, you can just cast it anytime there's a group of enemies bunched together and it'll do its job. With illusions, you need to first figure out your goal, then figure out how to do it, but if you do the results can be devastating. It can basically amount to an area of effect fear/invisibility/charm, make the foe waste their most powerful spells, or divert enemies into a trap. And there's the non-combat uses as well, which are legion.

So yeah, illusions can be a bit tricky to use. And that's fine. In a book with hundreds of spells, it's ok if a few of them require some planning. Don't like the uncertainty of illusion spells? Then use any of the many, many alternatives.

 

[Mad Mac]

Eh, it was just an example. I'm not saying illusion spells should be basic damage dealing spells and such. Just that the mechanics need an overhaul.

In general, I think there's room for out of combat/utility illusion spells to be very flexible. It's the DM has to make something up every time a player uses an illusion spell in combat thing that causes issues, imo. (Not just from the player side, but it can be a headache for the DM as well.)

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

As I see it 3.5 illusions suffer from the following:

1. Interaction is too weakly defined. Frank the DM had a good list as to what counted in another thread, but Wizards has never stepped up to the plate and said exactly what it takes to get you a will save against an illusion.

2. Use of Illusions in combat is even more poorly defined. We don't even know for certain if they can be used to provide flanking! Sure, it's been said that they don't have an attack roll so can't threaten, but the guy flanking you doing aid another isn't going to hit you either but he threatens.

3. What a failed save means is also unclear. If an orc thinks the dire badgers are real and they are in his face, hitting ac 10 shouldn't automatically dispell them, as there's a wizard wasting valuable rounds concentrating on the thing. The wizard might be able to make it seem that the orc missed. But this leads to:

3. The metagame factor: Ask for a will save every round that your PC's aren't hitting a foe that's not hitting them and the players will catch on very quickly. Then you have a phantasm doing what it cannot do: somehow forcing the PC to continue to press the attack even though the player has figured out it's an illusion, OR a player just ignoring a foe that the dice say his character believes the illusion is real.

For 4E they could even rule that illusions can't be used in combat as I describe, I'd accept that, as long as it was a clear ruling that was fair to both pc's and npc's.

--Z