Arcane Trickster--Specialist Wiz or Generalist?

[KarinsDad]

You are not faced with proof that an illusion isn't real. You know, FOR SURE, that it's at least partially real. And the level of spell being discussed here I believe makes it more real than illusion, on a percentage basis. Given that, I think the general rule that you can volunteer to fail a save should apply.

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."

The character knows it is an illusion. The fact that he knows it is quasi-real doesn't change the fact that it is still an illusion and he knows that for a fact.

 

[Jack Simth]

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."

The character knows it is an illusion. The fact that he knows it is quasi-real doesn't change the fact that it is still an illusion and he knows that for a fact.

You don't need a saving throw when you forgoe one (or do you still roll the dice when you deliberatly fail your save vs. Enlarge/Reduce Person?) (usually because the effect is thought beneficial to you at the time), and you don't need a saving thrown when you have proof that it's an illusion. No contradiction there.

Besides, as has been mentioned, IRL people forgoe their saves for illusions all the time..... commonly diliberately for the enjoyment (seen any good fantasy/sci-fi movies lately?).

 

[KarinsDad]

You don't need a saving throw when you forgoe one (or do you still roll the dice when you deliberatly fail your save vs. Enlarge/Reduce Person?) (usually because the effect is thought beneficial to you at the time), and you don't need a saving thrown when you have proof that it's an illusion. No contradiction there.

It is not that you forego your saving throw if you choose to fail it. The saving throw is still there, you just fail it because that is your choice (i.e. it is like rolling a one). You do not need to roll, but you still fail a saving throw that exists.

In the case of the proof of an illusion, there is no saving throw to fail. The result is equivalent to an auto-save, but there is no saving throw. You do not need to make one. There is no save for you. You cannot choose to fail a save that doesn't exist. The magic does not affect you. This is like Spell Resistance. You are immune to that spell. Or, it is like a spell which you are not a legal target for. The spell fails for you.

You cannot choose to fail a save on a spell which you are effectively immune to. Unlike spell resistance where you can lower the resistance as an action, there is no rule to lower your belief when you have proof that an illusion exists.

 

[Jack Simth]

Foregoing a save isn't like rolling a 1; your stuff isn't at risk.

Hmm.... that could be handy at times....

Well, let's see...

From the eminently quoteable SRD:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

It doesn't say he doesn't get one; it doesn't say he's immune; it doesn't say he becomes an invalid target; it doesn't say he can't make one; it says he doesn't need one. Under the vast majority of circumstances, you don't need a signet ring. Does that mean you can't have one?

So, rather than defaulting to not making one and succeeding automatically, he chooses to run the risk of a saving throw, then chooses to forego it and fail.

 

[KarinsDad]

It doesn't say he doesn't get one; it doesn't say he's immune; it doesn't say he becomes an invalid target; it doesn't say he can't make one; it says he doesn't need one. Under the vast majority of circumstances, you don't need a signet ring. Does that mean you can't have one?

So, rather than defaulting to not making one and succeeding automatically, he chooses to run the risk of a saving throw, then chooses to forego it and fail.

It's pretty clear that the intent of that sentence is that you are immune to the illusion because you know that it is not real. You know it is an illusion and are not subject to its effects.


If you want to have the PC play semantical games like "I know it's an illusion, because I cast it myself, but I won't believe it is an illusion and then I'll turn around and purposely submit myself to its magical effects", because the designer used the word "need", go ahead. It's a contradiction for a character to both know it is fake and believe it is real, but go play those types of games in your game if you want to.

There is a "disbelief" aspect to illusions in the game. There is no "purposeful belief" aspect in the game. You won't find a rule or example in the game to support purposely believing an illusion.

 

[Shellman]

Does anyone have suggestions for alternate spellcasters for arcane trixter?

Obviously it's arcane based, so that rules out the divine casters. Within arcane you have the choice of Int based or Cha based. Int has obvious advantages for a rogue, there are Cha skills, but personally I'd rather have the skill points than +2 to a skill check.

Are there any other Int based Arcane casters that would be compatable with Arcane Trixter?

edit: I was looking at the alternate classes in SRD and the 'spellcaster' would be intesting. It seems you can chose arcane/divine, Int/Wis/Cha, and choose spells known from any spell list (when compared to the sorcerer) in exchange for familiar and a few spells per day.

Warmage from Complete Arcane. It is has a very restrictive spell list, but they get tons of spells.

 

[Jack Simth]

It's pretty clear that the intent of that sentence is that you are immune to the illusion because you know that it is not real. You know it is an illusion and are not subject to its effects.

Funny... I would have thought that the assorted rather long-running debates that crop up every now and again on exactly this topic would be sufficient evidence that it's not quite so clear.....

Have you ever enjoyed a "magic" show, knowing how many of the illusions were done? Let yourself be drawn into a movie, responding as though these scenes were things that happened to people, knowing that it's just actors portraying events that never happened? You know it's not real, but you can go along with it anyway quite well, and reap the (usually) benefit.

If you want to have the PC play semantical games like "I know it's an illusion, because I cast it myself, but I won't believe it is an illusion and then I'll turn around and purposely submit myself to its magical effects", because the designer used the word "need", go ahead. It's a contradiction for a character to both know it is fake and believe it is real, but go play those types of games in your game if you want to.

No it's not; knowing and believing are two different (but often related) things. I've met gamblers that know the house always wins in the long run.... who believe their system will net them money. I've seen little kids have their imaginations run away with them - they know they made it all up, but for a time, they really do believe the monsters are out to get them.

There is a "disbelief" aspect to illusions in the game. There is no "purposeful belief" aspect in the game. You won't find a rule or example in the game to support purposely believing an illusion.

Sure there is; vouluntarily failing a saving throw. It even mentions that creatures with special resistence can suppress the quality and let it affect them. Granted, I seriously doubt there is a specific example of someone doing so for an illusion, but by RAW, you can let a fatal poison have it's way with you running through your veins (vouluntarily gave up a Fort save vs. Poison), suppress your immune system so it doesn't fight off a spell (Enlarge and Reduce Person both permit saves, and don't have the harmless tag), stand there and ignore the fireball that's just detonated (giving up reflex), or not jump when that trap door opens under your feet (Reflex again), or let someone Charm you because you want to feel friendship (Will). But apparently, by your interpertation, you can't close your eyes to the inconsistencies inherent in the illusion put out by a Hat of Disguise (will save DC 11 - nearly any D&D PC character will be able to make that reasonably consistently) as you consider yourself safer not really knowing who it is who's talking to you/you really don't want to see what they look like?

 

[KarinsDad]

No it's not; knowing and believing are two different (but often related) things. I've met gamblers that know the house always wins in the long run.... who believe their system will net them money. I've seen little kids have their imaginations run away with them - they know they made it all up, but for a time, they really do believe the monsters are out to get them.

This is not reality that we are talking about.

We are talking about the rules.

Unlike other magic in the game, Illusions are based on belief.

Effectively, we have two rules:

1) If you know it is an illusion, it does not affect you (i.e. you need no save).

2) If you want certain types of magic to affect you, you can (i.e. you can purposely fail your save).

What we do not have is a rule that if you know it is an illusion and you want it to affect you, you can choose to believe that it is real.

Anyone who casts an illusion spell knows that it is not real. Having them then believe it is real is totally contradictory. Having them want it to work is fine, but that is not the same as having them believe it is real.


You know EnWorld exists. You cannot just suddenly start believing that it does not exist just because that would net you a million dollars. You can claim it all you want (in order to try to get the million), but you will still know that it is not true.

Unlike the real world though, the magic of Illusions works on belief. The magic "knows" the difference between what you know and what you want to happen.

 

[Jack Simth]

This is not reality that we are talking about.

We are talking about the rules.

Unlike other magic in the game, Illusions are based on belief.

Effectively, we have two rules:

1) If you know it is an illusion, it does not affect you (i.e. you need no save).

2) If you want certain types of magic to affect you, you can (i.e. you can purposely fail your save).

No, effectively, we have two rules:
1) If you know it is an illusion, you have special resistence to it (i.e., you need no save)

2) If you want certain types of magic to affect you, you can (not only can you purposely fail your save, but you can suppress special resistence as well)

Thus, you can deliberately believe the results of a Shadow Conjouration are real, and get the full effect of that Phantom Steed you just faked up.

What we do not have is a rule that if you know it is an illusion and you want it to affect you, you can choose to believe that it is real.

Sure we do. Just like we have a rule that says a sufficiently epic wizard can get infinite free time (via repeated Persistent Time Stops). It's not so much a single rule as the interaction between two or more, but it's there.

Anyone who casts an illusion spell knows that it is not real. Having them then believe it is real is totally contradictory. Having them want it to work is fine, but that is not the same as having them believe it is real.

By the rules, they can suppress their knoweledge and have it fully affect them if they like.

You know EnWorld exists. You cannot just suddenly start believing that it does not exist just because that would net you a million dollars. You can claim it all you want (in order to try to get the million), but you will still know that it is not true.

You've never met someone who believed something that was demonstratably untrue about the world? Never met a good hypnotist? Never met someone who could self-hypnotise, or a lier that, a moment after lying, truely believes their own lie?

I have.

Unlike the real world though, the magic of Illusions works on belief. The magic "knows" the difference between what you know and what you want to happen.

Oh? Where's the rule that says an illusion(A glamer, say) knows anything? Especially as you keep insisting that it's only the rules we're discussing.

 

[Christian]

This is not reality that we are talking about.

We are talking about the rules.

Unlike other magic in the game, Illusions are based on belief.

Effectively, we have two rules:

1) If you know it is an illusion, it does not affect you (i.e. you need no save).

2) If you want certain types of magic to affect you, you can (i.e. you can purposely fail your save).

What we do not have is a rule that if you know it is an illusion and you want it to affect you, you can choose to believe that it is real.

Anyone who casts an illusion spell knows that it is not real. Having them then believe it is real is totally contradictory. Having them want it to work is fine, but that is not the same as having them believe it is real.


You know EnWorld exists. You cannot just suddenly start believing that it does not exist just because that would net you a million dollars. You can claim it all you want (in order to try to get the million), but you will still know that it is not true.

Unlike the real world though, the magic of Illusions works on belief. The magic "knows" the difference between what you know and what you want to happen.

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, KD. Either the terms 'believe' and 'disbelieve' have special, technical meanings in the rules regarding saves versus glamers and phantasms, or they're being used in their normal English meanings. If the former, then we're limited in our inferences by the specified technical meanings given to those terms; in this case, certain types of situations where characters gain bonuses, re-rolls, or even automatic success to those saves--but none specifically listed that indicate characters lose their normal option to forgo making a saving throw. If the latter, then the discussion of 'cognitive dissonance' is certainly relevant, whether the game designers had that in mind or not. Given the quagmire that that can lead to (do we need psychology degrees to DM this game?), I'm strongly inclined to go with the first reading. And it is nowhere stated in the rules that a character is unable to voluntarily fail a saving throw, even one where he would automatically succeed if he chose to try to save. Neither a Will (disbelief) save nor any other kind ...