Glamer-flavored illusions, generally and in combat

[Sagiro]

[Note: players in my game MAY read this if they want, and even comment. Nothing is being spolied that you don't already know, given the circumstances. I'll trust you to be objective.]

3.X D&D may have cleaned up many questions about illusions, but it's still a messy subject. I have a particular scenario coming up, and wanted the opinions of the good folks of EN World.

First off, the party is currently affected by a veil spell.

Veil
you instantly change the appearance of the subjects and then maintain that appearance for the spell’s duration. You can make the subjects appear to be anything you wish. The subjects look, feel, and smell just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble. Affected creatures resume their normal appearances if slain. You must succeed on a Disguise check to duplicate the appearance of a specific individual. This spell gives you a +10 bonus on the check. Unwilling targets can negate the spell’s effect on them by making Will saves or with spell resistance. Those who interact with the subjects can attempt Will disbelief saves to see through the glamer, but spell resistance doesn’t help.

Specifically, they are glamered to look like large cave-rats, as they sneak about underground.

Question 1: would a human glamered to look like a rat, who then walked around, look like a rat walking on its hind legs?

Question 2: If not, and the illusion somehow included the ability to simluate the normal four-legged movement-type of the rat even while the human walked upright, how would such a glamered individual make it look like the rat was standing up on its hind legs?

Question 3: Take one of my 6' tall humans glamered to look like an unclothed, equipmentless rat that stands but a foot off the ground. That human draws a sword. What would an observer see? A rat with a normal-sized sword floating above it? A rat holding a tiny rat-sized sword? A rat miming the motion of sword-drawing, but with no sword in evidence, since the sword is still masked by the glamer, just like before the sword was drawn?

Question 4: Now the rat-looking human approaches an enemy and swings the sword, landing a hit. What did the victim observe? Did they see a rat approach, swinging a sword? Did they see the rat wave its paw but see no sword, and then wonder where the wound came from? Does it simply see a cute little rat at its feet, and then experience a seemingly-unrelated source of pain?

Questions 5, etc.: Consider the PH explanation of illusions:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief ): 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. A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

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.

At what point (if at all) in a combat with a glamered human made to look like a rat, would a combatant of average intelligence consider what's happening as "proof" the illusion isn't real? If the rat hits me with a sword, is that proof enough? What if I don't actually see the sword, just a rat waving its little rat arms around? What about a rat who casts a fireball which fires out of a point three feet above the rat's head?

All of these questions are likely going to come up in my next session, and I'd rather have these things worked out in advance.

Oh, bonus question: Assume that a 6' human glamered as a 1'-tall rat stands before a dangling rope, whose bottom is 4' off the ground. The human simply grabs the stomach-high rope and starts pulling himself up, hand over hand. Would an observer think the rat had jumped four feet into the air? (No, Piratecat, you're pretty sure no one actually saw you climb the rope, but the thought did occur to me while I was rolling spot checks.)

Thanks!

-Sagiro

 

[Aust Diamondew]

You ask the hard questions of what I try not to think about while playing the game but do quite a bit when just thinking about it. I rhink they leave it vague for DM interpretation but thats a crappy answer.

 

[Jack Simth]

My take?

While the glamour holds, the viewer sees a rat doing the most rat-like thing that would explain the situation; if the covered character does something un-ratlike, any viewers get a will save as per interacting with a bonus depending on how un-like rat behaviour it was.
Such things as drawing a sword (or other obviously-threatening item) show up as the rat baring it's fangs (no save); other pre-spell item manipulations show up as the rat grooming, twiting it's whiskers, moving it's tail, et cetera (also no save).
All modifiers below stack
If the total DC modifiers bring the will save DC to 10 or less, no save is necessary - it is automatically disbelieved.
Baseline Will save for anything out of character for a rat (not sticking to corners and shadows, say, or approaching bigger creatures than the assumed form); failure means the rat seems to act oddly.
-2 DC for intelligent actions (levers and the like); failure makes it look like a better trained rat than first assumed.
-2 DC for fine manipulation actions that a rat couldn't pull off (picking locks, disarming traps, et cetera - note that in most circumstances, they will also get the intelligent action DC reduction as well); failure makes it look like a much better trained rat than was first assumed.
-2 DC for actions requireing more strength than a rat would reasonably have (lifting a Tower Shield an inch off the ground, for instance); failure makes it seem like a much stronger rat than was first presumed.
-2 DC for actions requireing a greater size than the assumed image (turning a doorknob three feet off the ground, or lifting a shield from the ground to three feet high); failure makes it seem like a much bigger rat than was first presumed.
-15 DC for actions that would hurt someone in an un-rat like way (e.g., fireball, sword swing, et cetera; however, characters with a bite attack who limit themselves to that get only a -10 to the DC save for this section); failure means that the rat did something rather funky with it's teeth and claws that resulted in effectively the same attack.

Just first thoughts, of course.

 

[Gynsala]

Well it makes sense (and would make for a damn funny scene) for them to appear as rats walking on their hind legs. So if they wanted to look normal, they'd have to walk on all fours. If they attack, it would probably look like the rat swinging it's claw at the target (or jabbing, or whatever). It sounds like it's basically DM discretion, it's a high enough spell, it should work well enough to disguise the party as they should need it to. Then again.... being disguised as cave rats is pretty tricky.

 

[Infiniti2000]

1. No, not unless the caster of veil wanted that look. He could make it appear that all the 'rats' were floating in air. If they have to have the same number of limbs and movement modes, then it couldn't be 'anything you want.'

2. The caster of the illusion defines how it will function. If he wants a rat to veer up on its hind legs, then the rat does so. If, for example, you made them appear to be beholders, how could they move around at all? Would they have to walk on two extra-large eyestalks? (Assuming that the PCs are all bipedal.) However, the caster must still be concentrating in order to change the way it functions. If he made the rats walk on four legs while the humans were on two and then stopped concentrating, he couldn't change it.

3. If the caster doesn't want the rat to appear to have a sword, then he doesn't. An observer will likely hear the sword get drawn, though.

4. They see the rat come up and swing at them, most likely with a claw (but the attack must be evident). They then feel the effects of a sword slice them open. That can't be hidden.

5. None of the combat would constitute proof IMO, but this is subjective. Any magic that can make someone appear to be a rat could obviously make a rat have special attacks that resemble sword blows. Proof would be something like a comrade walking through an illusory wall.

Bonus: I'd say that it would appear the rat jumped up as that's the most obvious situation. The caster of veil (if still concentrating by this point), could change that, but unlikely.

 

[Sagiro]

Infiniti, how would your answers change, if it all, if you assume that the caster has long since stopped concentrating, and is just riding the residual 1 hour/level duration?

I've thought about this some more since I posted, and I'm leaning in a less sympathetic direction. I'm more inclined to say that it's the responsibility of the glamered target not to take actions that strain the believability of the glamer, given what they look like. The glamer will "cover" for someone taking an action that the illusionary form could physically do, but "break" and look highly suspicious otherwise.

For example, a giant glamered to look like a halfling reaches for the doorknob to open the door to his house. The doorknob is ten feet off the ground. In the absence of a still-concentrating caster, I don't think the illusion creates some new action that justifies the door opening. I think an observer would see the halfling reach up as high as they can, make a turning motion with his hand, and the doorknob would seem to turn on its own.

Likewise, I think a cave rat drawing and swinging a sword would look like a rat making a drawing and swinging motion with a paw. The paw would clearly "miss", since the rat's arm is not as long as the sword, but the target would feel the pain of a slashing blade.

In other words, I don't think a glamer covers for any cognitive dissonance it itself creates. The power of the veil spell is in its duration, flexibility and number of targets, not in its ability to adapt to any actions the glamered creatures may take.

Here's another thought experiment that occurs to me as I type: given that the veil spell has no size limit, could the caster make his party resemble no-see-ums, or some other essentially invisible tiny creature? What would an observer "see" if a gnat pulled out a sword and started attacking? Does veil become mass improved invisibility with will saves for the opponents?

Thanks for the opinions; I'd love to hear more.

-Sagiro

 

[Infiniti2000]

Once the caster stops concentrating, I'd tend to agree with you to be less sympathetic.

1. If the caster made the rats walk on four legs despite being humans, then they remain on four legs. If the humans then drop to all fours, the rats would drop the ground and seemingly crawl (making it look less believable).

2. He could not. The individual cannot change the illusion.

3. If the rat is equipmentless, he cannot suddenly produce any equipment. I suppose with a lack of concentration, the rat would now mimic the person to its best ability, i.e. making a swinging motion.

For any of these wierd occurrences, I'd give a circumstance bonus of +2 to +4 on the saving throw. I agree with your interpretation on the giant/halfling example. Regarding no-see-ums, I suppose it could. The spell is (unfortunately) unlimited.

 

[Piratecat]

This is somewhat refined by asking, instead of rats, "what if we made ourselves look like tennis rackets sliding along the ground?"

A ludicrous example, of course, but it helps refine the question because inanimate objects aren't capable of rat expressions. I'd say that once concentration stopped, we'd only look like sliding tennis rackets, even if we pulled swords or hung from a rope (in which case the racket would be suspended in mid air next to the rope.)

As rats and after concentration ended, I'd rule:

1 & 2. We'd appear to be on all fours, and be simply unable to appear to be rearing up.

3. We'd still appear to be a rat, no sword visible (assuming we had the sword with us when the illusion was cast.)

4. When we whacked a foe with the unseen sword he'd get a will save PDQ. He'd see a rat standing 5' from him, get hurt in the shape of a sword slash (I'd tend to give a +2 circumstance modifier on this first attack), then get a saving throw.

5. Here's the tricky one. Remember, we live in a world where tiny monsters really do weird stuff; if a lizard can throw electricity, why can't a rat throw fireballs? Heck, a toad in the 1e Fiend Folio can.

I'm not sure I'd ever allow an average intelligence individual automatic knowledge in this sort of situation; to my mind, that belongs more to the "illusionary bridge that your two buddies just fell through" category. If I did, I'd probably require difficult spellcraft checks (ie int checks) to realize that it's an illusion spell is in use and not something else, with a circumstance modifier each round for every unexplainable phenomena observed. Normally the DC is DC 20 + spell level, but that's for a specific spell; these guys don't need to know it's a veil, they need to understand it's an illusion. I'd set the DC at 15+spell level to start.

6. The rat would be on the ground, fly into the air, and dangle -- horizontally, as if walking on the ground -- from the rope.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is somewhat refined by asking, instead of rats, "what if we made ourselves look like tennis rackets sliding along the ground?"

Well, it specifically needs to be a creature. It can't be an inanimate object. Now, if you say an animated tennis racket...

 

[Sagiro]

Piratecat, I'm inclined to agree with you about spellcasting to a point -- that avg. intelligence creatures won't instinctively know that the rat casting the fireball is actually an illuision. It could be any number of things: a polymorphed spellcaster, someone invisible or hidden who's standing next to the rat, or even a new breed of nasty spell-casting cave rat!

However, I think getting hit with a fireball seemingly cast by a rat counts as "interaction," and allows a will save just as would getting it with a sword.

Also: the canonical "illusionary wall" example, like all examples I've even seen of "provably false" illusions, is a figment. Glamers are a different animal, and I wonder at what point one's interaction with a glamered creature rises to the same standard. If a giant swings a club down at a cave rat, and the club strikes something solid five feet off the ground, with a "clank" sound indiciative of club-struck armor, is that "proof?" What about if the giant, made suspicious at the very least, gropes in the air above the rat and feels a clearly humanoid figure there? What if it spots blood dripping out of the air four feet above the rat?

I think I'd lean toward making "proof" a difficult standard to meet, but allow a new will save each time that the giant's suspicions are provoked, with increasing bonuses due to a growing preponderance of evidence. "Proof" might come if, for instance, one of the rats started a grapple.

-Sagiro