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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6993934" data-attributes="member: 6701872">That seems like a fair enough adjudication, since it uses up at least part of an action to determine that the thing seen is actually an illusion.That, however, I think isn't at all fair as it takes a roll that maybe the character isn't all that good at (such as because the player decided an 8 intelligence was plenty and doesn't have investigation proficiency) and replaces it a roll that is much more likely to succeed - effectively turning what would normally be a weakness of a particular sort of character (the dull-witted brute) into yet another strength.Not if it is definitely only 1 attack. Other 1st level spells that negate attacks usually have at least the potential of negating multiple attacks, if not multiple rounds of attacks.I think it is important to note the difference between thinking that what you are seeing - a completely silent, odorless, heatless beast that you can't seem to hurt and yet hasn't actually attacked you - is really there, despite being really strange, and thinking what you are seeing is an illusion.At best, all the missing information (being able to see it, but not perceive it with any other senses) should be grounds for suspicion that leads to spending action(s) on making checks to determine that it is in fact an illusion. Not immediate proof that it definitely is an illusion, because in a world where magic is real there is no reason to assume that only one explanation is possible.</blockquote>

Verification