Figment magic

[DrSpunj]

Good enough!

Alright, Nail, then to take this back to another thread/discussion, let's bring Spellcraft back into it.

The RAW for Spellcraft says this:

20 + spell level
Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

Since we disagreed on what Spellcraft gains you when looking at an Illusion spell already in place, what if we incorporated the Standard Action for the Spellcraft check? That is, if you take a Standard Action to study the Illusion spell, you can make a Spellcraft check. If you beat the DC as outlined in the RAW then you gain a bonus on your Will save vs the Illusion.

I think this addresses your "all spellcasters get two free tries to beat the Illusion spell" argument since you're spending a Standard Action. But it still rewards spellcasters for being more familiar with the magic.

How much of a bonus to the Will save? I'd give +4 since I can't see it coming up all that often and we're already limiting (IMO ) what the RAW says he can do with Spellcraft already as a "No Action".

Thoughts?

DrSpunj

 

[Zen]

My group and I were seeing the Will save as a contest between the caster and the observer -- the observer acts against the illusion, and the caster makes it react. If the observer fails his save, the caster has succeeded in providing a convincing reaction on the part of the illusion. If the observer makes his save, the caster has slipped up, and the observer has seen through the illusion.

Spellcraft would have a roll in this, as ranks in spellcraft would indicate an educated observer.

The thing with making a study of an illusion is that when a player calls for one, he knows something is up already, so it's not automatic, just-walking-into-the-room opportunity to save, which would really weaken the effectiveness of these spells.

 

[Particle_Man]

Illusions have never, ever, ever, been easy to write rules about. The edition of D&D is irrelevant.

Heck even the rpg is irrelevant. I wonder if part of the problem is that with rpg's we are already dealing with a "virtual" reality. I mean, we are pretending to cast fireballs, swing swords, slay dragons, etc. So then illusions add an extra layer of "let's pretend" and this might be too much to easily support, so we end up back at "you missed me! (I disbelieve the illusion)" "Did not! (My illusion cannot be disbelieved by what you have done so far)".

If I ever get time, I might write a book/article on illusion magic. Just to sort it out in my own head, if nothing else. I mean, there are "hologram" types, "masking" types, "mind affecting" types, "partially real" types, "redefining objective reality" types (the 1st ed. Alter Reality spell required a Phantasmal Force as a prereq.), etc. The latter shades into non-illusions magic (more like transmutation, I guess).

 

[Nail]

Since we disagreed on what Spellcraft gains you when looking at an Illusion spell already in place, what if we incorporated the Standard Action for the Spellcraft check? That is, if you take a Standard Action to study the Illusion spell, you can make a Spellcraft check. If you beat the DC as outlined in the RAW then you gain a bonus on your Will save vs the Illusion.

Sure, that sounds fine.

Again, most times I'd like the player to be responsible for calling for a "disbelief check".

 

[Nail]

My group and I were seeing the Will save as a contest between the caster and the observer..

A contest between two people is best modeled in d20 by opposed checks. ....And that's not the method the rules use. The Will save for the "victim" is independent of the caster's skill.

 

[DrSpunj]

Sure, that sounds fine.

Alright, then how much of a bonus do you think is reasonable? +2? +4? Based on how much you beat the Spellcraft DC?

Again, most times I'd like the player to be responsible for calling for a "disbelief check".

That's fine, but I would think/expect a caster like Tieran would ask for one a disbelief check after a reactive "No action" Spellcraft check gave him an odd result: "It must be a new spell" or something along those lines.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Zen]

A contest between two people is best modeled in d20 by opposed checks. ....And that's not the method the rules use. The Will save for the "victim" is independent of the caster's skill.

The caster does have an affect on the DC of the save, through ability modifiers and any feats such as spell focus. This can be translated in game terms that a highly intelligent wizard with spell focus in illusion is better at creating and controlling figments than a caster with an average intelligence --hence the higher DC.

Not as good as a straight opposed roll, perhaps, but who the caster is and what they work at has some relevance using RAW.

 

[Nail]

+2 seems like a reasonable bonus for making the spellcraft check. "+2: DMs best friend!"

The caster does have an affect on the DC of the save, through ability modifiers and any feats such as spell focus. ....

But, since this has nothing to do with the wizard's skill (i.e. level), you can, instead, think of it a "more powerful magic".

The distinction is that it is the magic, rather than the wizard, that the opponent is trying to see through. How competant the wizard is, and how skillfully he manipulates the illusion, is irrelevant.

 

[iwatt]

Just to add some logs into the flames. IMC you can't run your sword through an illusory wall. You're currently decieved by your senses so your mind makes you act as if there really was a wall (stopping your arm from passing through the wall, etc.) This situation of course gives you a chance to disbelieve the illusion, with a circumstance modifier thrown in. We use the above rule for most situations, because we fell that Illusions should be somewhat more powerful (in keeping with a lot of fantasy fiction) than it is in it's current incarnation.

This leads to really funny situations in which the Wis 5 Fighter can't cross the illusory wall even though he's seen his companions walk through it many times.

"Krusk not cross rock. Krusk not stupid."

 

[Zen]

Aha! I both agree and disagree with the sword through the wall business. Here's how I think that works:

Figments don't affect your senses, at least not in the same way that a glamer or phantasm would. Rather, figments create a false image of a thing. That's a subtle but important difference. So when it comes to running a sword through an illusionary wall, yes, the observer can do so. He sees the wall and he sees his sword pass through the wall without hindrance, and he can do this automatically if the wall isn't avoiding the sword (it might--this IS D&D).

This action provides irrefutable proof of the illusion's nature, and the DM may rule that the observer can see through the false wall automatically. His friends passing through the wall may also be ruled as irrefutable proof of the wall's nature as well.

However, being shown something is a little different that being told something, so a DM may well rule that an observer cannot bring himself to charge through a wall that he has been TOLD is an illusion, but still believes to be real, without the accompanying will save (at +4 of course), or the action spent to examine the wall for himself.

Oh, and Nail: I agree with your point re: magic vs. skill.