NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zephrin the Lost" data-source="post: 3746790" data-attributes="member: 30760">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</blockquote>

Verification