Figment magic

[Zen]

I am curious how other groups handle the will save for silent, minor and major image spells--specifically when used to create an image of a creature

The rules talk about interaction, but this can be interpreted a number of different ways. After some debates on the matter, our group has agreed that interaction is just that-- an action. When confronted by an figment of a creature, the observer must use a standard action to poke, prod, attack, or study the image to receive a will save. Just seeing it is not enough, as the illusion looks as real as anything else. If they fail, they remain convinced of the image's reality. The observer gets an additional save each turn they continue to interact with the image.

My question is, is this what the rules are trying to say, or did we just invent a house rule?

 

[nhl_1997]

Dealing with illusions (particularly figmants) is essentially entirelly house-rules in the first place. I think I remember seeing in the rules somewhere that someone receives a new save against a figment only in certain situations such as a comrade stating "Hey, it's just an illusion" (giving a new save with a +4 bonus).

Seems like an okay house-rule though.

 

[0-hr]

But don't you save automatically if you get proof that the image is fake? If you prod at a fake wall, your sword will go right though it - therefore you know it is an illusion (incontrovertable proof).

Now, how do you intereact with a wall without doing something that proves it to be false automatically? I guess shooting an arrow at a "pourous" looking wall maybe?

 

[Zen]

Well, walls are a different matter. The rules are fine for when the illusion is of an inanimate object, like a wall or a chair. It's when the caster does a minor image of a drow, or some other living creature, something that the caster can control, that what exactly is meant by 'interaction' seems vague.

The illusionary drow can't do damage, but it can appear threatening. Observers can attack it, but the caster can have the illusion dodge thier blows, or 'survive' thier spells, perserving the 'reality' of the illusion.

 

[Scion]

Especially if you make the creature resemble something incorporeal. It could get nearly impossible then, bah.

Same goes for walls really, what if I made a spell 'wall of smoke', it makes what appears to be a solid wall but is actually made of smoke so people can pass right through it (no further effects). So, before the character has exposure to this spell maybe every wall that you can pass through is illusory = incontravertable proof. However, once you seem a wall that does not qualify then from now on being able to pass your sword through it is 'not' incontravertable proof that it is an illusion.

Crazyness either way. It seems easiest just to talk with the group and find out what they want to do whenever it pops up. Each group I have been in has done it a little differently, to one dm just not allowing the use of most illusions at all.

 

[Zen]

Well, looks like I got my answer then. It's not just our group. The rules on illusions in 3.5 are as vague as they've always been. If we can all come up with fixes for this, why can't WoC? It's like they don't even want to bother with this school of magic, even going so far as to decide that gnomes are best at being bards so there's less reason for players to focus on illusions.

Maybe complete arcane will have something useful on the subject-unlike Tome and Blood, which had only two spells and no illusion-based prestige classes.

 

[Nail]

Illusions have never, ever, ever, been easy to write rules about. The edition of D&D is irrelevant. (The current edition's designers desided to err on the side of whimpiness.)

In 3.5e, it looks like the word "interaction" is helpful...until, as you've found out, you try to determine what an interaction is. Your (Zen's) definition looks much the same as ours: you have to do something to the image in order to be considered interacting with it. Even if this interaction doesn't provide you with incontrovertible proof, it still allows a Will Save. If there are additional factors...well, that's what circumstance bonuses/penalties are for.

(Where we differ, Zen: I'm not convinced spending an action to "study" the illusion provides grounds for a saving throw. Convince me, using RAW, that I'm wrong.)

Even if the illusionist makes the illusion act or be damaged as a real subject would be --> that still means a Will save.

 

[Len]

(Where we differ, Zen: I'm not convinced spending an action to "study" the illusion provides grounds for a saving throw. Convince me, using RAW, that I'm wrong.)

How about this:

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

(From the SRD, MagicOverview.rtf. I haven't verified whether the same language is in the printed rules.)

So I guess it hinges on your interpretation of "study it carefully". I'd say that since a standard action is enough to allow a Search check to find a hidden trap, it's enough to allow a saving throw for an illusion.

 

[Nail]

Good enough!

 

[CyberSpyder]

Seems to me that illusions of that nature ought not to provide a saving throw at all. Just let the player decide if he thinks it's an illusion or not, and act accordingly.