Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 362793" data-attributes="member: 2011">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one interpretationHere we go again. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Hopefully it will not become a shouting match this time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And, this response is long, but it takes a while to really sift through the many different problems with illusions in the book if you go by this sentence and the sentences that follow it. But, I have put a lot of thought into this over time and realized that the writers probably left these sentences in by accident. Either that or they spent virtually no time thinking about this aspect of some illusions and screwed most of them up. And I'm willing to listen to alternative ways that these sentences work with the illusions in the book, but I'm hard pressed to see a clean solution that includes them.Yes, the SRD has this sentence. The PHB has it too. And so, some people will probably play it that way (somehow).But, in all seriousness, it is at least partially mistaken and probably totally mistaken. The entire illusion section and set of spells was not checked for accuracy, consistency, or what happens to other effects such as sound or thermal when a save is made. Otherwise, they would not have had to make the second edition changes like the ones jgbrowning pointed out.I cannot prove that this sentence is totally in error, but that's the only logical conclusion. Personally, I think someone wrote it and then they just forgot about it when writing the spells and never went back to fix it.I can, however, show a series of spells which partially or wholly contradict these sentences (like the other phrase was contradicted in the first edition and SRD) or create game mechanic problems. It is up to each DM to decide whether these sentences are in error or the spell descriptions are in error or that certain contradictions have to be sidestepped somehow, ignored, or adjudicated differently in different situations.1) Phantasms are only in the mind of the viewer, so how can they have translucent outlines? For example, Phantasmal Killer. Here, it does not say what happens if the will saving throw is made, presumably nothing. But, since it is an instantaneous spell, how can translucent outlines remain?Or, Illusionary Script. But, it doesn’t talk about translucent outlines if the save is made. It talks about being able to look away and not be affected by the spell if the save is made.There are only three Phantasms in the entire PHB and the third one, Dream, doesn’t have images, it has messages. It also does not have a saving throw. So, translucent outlines cannot apply to any of the three Phantasms in the book as written. So, why is it in this sentence?Maybe the sentence was really supposed to be about Glamers instead of Phantasms since they are illusions which change the sensory qualities of an object and Figments are illusions that do effectively the same thing, but just not on an object (i.e. illusions of objects when actual objects are not really there).But then, Invisibility should have a saving throw to see an translucent outline if that were the case. It doesn’t take much to realize that someone is invisible in the vicinity. Blur should have a save as well to see the illusionary portions of the spell. But, it doesn’t. There are a lot of Glamer spells that do not have Will saves to let the character know that there is an illusion, but the character already knows in a lot of those cases that it is an illusion. So, the conclusion is that you typically cannot perceive through a Glamer and find out the truth beneath without other magic.And, if you read things like Change Self, other characters do get a Will save to notice that it is an illusion. But nowhere does it state that they actually get to see what the real character looks like under that illusion. With the amount of duplicate information given in the book over and over again, something so obvious and necessarily for the spell should at least rate a sentence.Ditto for Hallucinatory Terrain. The best I can tell, you know you are in a Glamer illusion, but you still see it as presented. The spell does not indicate either way, but again, it seems that such an obvious thing would be mentioned if your perception of the glamer changed due to making the will save. (i.e. you could feel that what looks like a tree is really a rock and no longer feels like a tree and now feels like a rock and has a translucent outline).Veil, on the other hand, states “who interact with the subjects can attempt Will disbelief saves to see through the glamer”. But, this is the only glamer spell that states this and it could just be a poor choice of words (or one of the few spells written at the time of the contested sentence) since all other such Glamers state it does this to “recognize the glamer as an illusion”, not to see through it.So, it appears that they were not talking about Figments and Glamers as opposed to Figments and Phantasms. If they were talking about Glamers, they only have it in one Glamer in the entire book out of many Glamers where it says anything even close. There are probably more Glamers than any other type of illusion, but none of the rest state anything about seeing through the Glamer. And, many Glamers explicitly prevent you from seeing through them.It appears that Glamers and Phantasms were not the illusion types for this sentence, but who can really tell?Also, I will not go into all of the reasons why it makes no sense for these sentences to apply to Patterns (most of which are instantaneous) or Shadows (which stick around and have partial effect if the save is made), but it should be fairly obvious.2) The weird thing here is that Glamers and Figments are nearly identical with the exception of one being an illusion on an object and the other not, especially when you are talking about Glamers like Change Self. So, why would Figments have this translucent property when Glamers do not? That seems inconsistent.Well, let’s look at some Figments:Illusionary Wall: “This spell creates the illusion of a wall, floor, ceiling, or similar surface. It appears absolutely real when viewed, but physical objects can pass through it without difficulty. When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors, any detection abilities that do not require sight work normally. Touch or probing searches reveal the true nature of the surface, though they do not cause the illusion to disappear.”Does this last sentence mean that it does not disappear for other viewers of the wall, just for the guy who made the save? That’s not really what it says. It says that probing reveals it as an illusion, but does not make it disappear. I would think that everyone knows that it is an illusion if you probe a pole through it since that sentence says that’s what happens. So, why wouldn’t it disappear for them and be replaced with a translucent outline?Ghost Sounds. It creates sound. What happens if you make your will save? Nothing says. There are no translucent images for sound. Maybe the sound lowers in volume or changes pitch? Who can say? I think it is just as reasonable to think that the sound does not change, you just happen to understand that it is caused by a spell as opposed to being natural.Mirror Image does not have a saving throw to see translucent outlines.Major Image has the images disappear if struck unless the spell caster causes it to act appropriately. Well, what about the will save? Does it mean that the characters who made the save see a translucent outline? If so, then why does both Mirror Image and Major Image both have disappearing images when struck, but you can make a will save to see translucent images with one, but not the other? Why is the higher level spell not as protected against will saves as the lower level spell, even though you absolutely know the images are illusions with the lower level spell and you do not know that with the higher level spell?None of that makes any sense.Mislead: Once you make the will save, the image becomes translucent and you can see through it according to the contested sentence. But, you can still feel it, hear it, and smell it. So, all of the aspects of the illusion would still be there for a blind person, but for a sighted person, part of the illusion would disappear and be replaced with a translucent outline. Why do some of the properties of the illusion vanish while others remain? It seems extremely strange that one property of an illusion would totally change and that they would not have any information on what happens with the other properties.Ditto for Persistent Image. You still hear and smell the Orcs playing cards, but they suddenly look like translucent outlines to you.3) Figments like Silent Image, Minor Image, and Major Image have a set Area of Effect. The illusion does not extend beyond those areas. However, characters outside those areas can still see those illusions.So, you have two possibilities. One is how I interpret Illusions. The magic is confined to that area and the Figment reflects (or emits) real light from that area. Someone a hundred feet away sees that real light.The other is that the magic extends beyond the area to affect a character one hundred feet away or a thousand feet away, whatever. When that character fires an arrow at the sleeping Ogre in the illusion and the arrow goes right through him, the character has interacted with the magic and gets a save, realizes it is an illusion and the Ogre suddenly becomes a translucent outline for that character. The magic for that character and only that character changes.But, there is some game mechanic problems with this. If the magic extends beyond the Area of Effect, first off, this is something new. Magic within an Area of Effect does not extend beyond the Area of Effect by definition of Effect.Also, Globes of Invulnerability prevent effects from certain level spells from entering the globe. So, if the magic is allowed to extend beyond the Area of Effect to either be seen as an image or as an translucent outline, depending on whether a character made a save, that same character in a Globe of Invulnerability 100 feet away should see neither effect. The magic of the low level illusion should not get through the Globe.If another character has a Mirror Image 100 feet away and you are in a Globe of Invulnerability, you do not stop him from being protected by his Mirror Image since his spell is not within your Globe. You also still see any visible effect created by any other low level spell beyond your Globe. You are not affected by those spells, but you still see them. So you would still see the Mirror Image spell (it does not have a will save), even though it is a Figment.On the other hand, if the illusion just reflects or emits light, then that light could easily get through the Globe.So, what conclusions can one make from this?1) Phantasms (and Patterns and Shadows) cannot be meant by this sentence at all.2) Figments may be meant, but lower level Figments have ways to prevent being perceived through by a save whereas higher level Figments do not.3) The sentence may mean Glamers and Figments, but there is only one Glamer in the book that allows you to see through it if the save is made and a significant majority of Glamers explicitly prevent you from doing this. It's possible that the authors wanted Figments and Glamers to work this way and then later on forgot it when they wrote the actual spells. It almost sounds like one of the authors brought his "house rule" in from his game, but the spells do not quite correspond to it.4) Figments with Area of Effects (most) have problems with the saving throw and Globes of Invulnerability beyond the Area of Effect. The magic of the Figments apparently can go beyond their Area of Effect and get through the Globe and extend beyond their own Area of Effect if your visual image changes to a translucent outline.My conclusion is that this sentence and the ones after it in the PHB are obsolete and inappropriate ones which do not correspond to the vast majority of illusion spells. They appear to jar with how most of those spells are written. Quite frankly, it looks like the writers totally dropped the ball on Illusions and how to adjudicate them.If you interpret Figments and Glamers to just reflect and emit light and/or sound and/or touch and/or thermal qualities, all of these problems go away. You make a saving throw to realize that there is something wrong with the image that you are getting from the illusion and figure it out. Because it is just simple lights and sounds, it cannot harm you in any way.Obviously, YMMV. But, you do not get weird side effects with my interpretation (i.e. by dropping this sentence). Instead, you get a series of illusions which are easy to adjudicate since they behave well by staying within their Area of Effect and all of the properties of the illusions work in similar manners.</blockquote>

Verification