Handling Illusions and Spellcraft

[Fieari]

Oops! I guess that's a house rule then. Sorry, my bad.

 

[Corlon]

Basically, yes. No action required, which is different than "Not an action" so it can be done out of your turn, at least that's how most people interpriet that, and it apprears to be how it is intended.

This makes illusion (certain types at least) magic when around enemy spellcasters less than a good tactic. Especially since you can speak out of initiative order. The ol' cavalry hoovs a comin' is much less helpful when the enemy spellcaster can yell out to his comrades, "That's an illusion!"

So, if you saw a bear coming at you and your friend said "don't worry, it's an illusion. Trust me, I know these things." Would that stop you from running away?

Granted, wizards do know about these things and DND is rife with Magic, but still, I believe people have to make the save for themselves before they can disbelieve.


Or do I have that wrong?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, if you saw a bear coming at you and your friend said "don't worry, it's an illusion. Trust me, I know these things." Would that stop you from running away?

Probably. I would definitely not stop me from putting my friend between the bear and me, however.

Granted, wizards do know about these things and DND is rife with Magic, but still, I believe people have to make the save for themselves before they can disbelieve.

Or do I have that wrong?

No, you're right. Having something pointed out to you as an illusion generally grants a bonus on your saving throw against it (+4).

Only having incontrovertible proof that something is an illusion (like your friend walking through the bear) obviates the need for a save.

 

[KarinsDad]

The original poster's point is well taken.

"Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)"

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw."

NPC Wizard casts an Illusionary Wall.

PC Cleric only has to hear him doing that, or see him doing that. So, even if the Wizard is invisible, it is a little tougher to pull this off (and yes, he could make it Silent as well, but that takes a feat and a higher level spell and special spell prep for most Wizards).

PC Cleric states that it is an illusion and swings his mace through it. All of the rest of the PCs automatically save.

Plus, there are usually multiple PCs that have SpellCraft in many groups, so the chances of pulling off an in-combat illusion is even less.

The bottom line is that SpellCraft tends to often invalidate in-combat illusions. A skill that is more potent than a significant portion of an entire school of spells. Hmmmm.


I think the only way around this is to have the NPC Wizard not cast Illusion spells in combat too often. Illusions would become the domain of out of combat, long range, under special prep, etc.

An interesting house rule would be to have opposed SpellCraft rolls (the caster of the spell has to use up a move action to accomplish this) in order to fake out opposing spell casters from knowing what the real spell is. If he wins the opposed roll and his opponents make a normal SpellCraft check, they think he cast a real Wall of Stone as opposed to the Illusionary one. If he loses the roll and his opponents make a normal SpellCraft check, they think he cast an Illusionary Wall of Stone.


Btw, in my game, characters have to make a Listen roll for any spell cast beyond 30 feet in combat (or other noisy conditions) and beyond 60 feet in relatively quiet conditions unless they can clearly see the caster. If they can see him, they can make a Spot roll beyond 30 feet instead (or both rolls is they can both see and hear him). Any caster in an unobstructed line within 30 feet does not require any Listen/Spot rolls. The DC is 10 plus 1 per 5 feet beyond the minimum plus 1 per opponent in a straight line between them and the caster. So, 2 opponents between the PC and the caster 50 feet away is DC 16. If the PC makes either roll (if he can both see and hear), he then can make his normal SpellCraft roll.

Course, enemy casters can do things like stick their head over a wall and then the PCs do not get a Spot roll (not being able to see the somatic components), just a Listen roll.

So in answer to the original poster's question, forcing your PCs (and NPCs) to make Listen/Spot rolls to hear/see the casting before making a SpellCraft roll can make illusions a little more useful in combat. It's hard to make your SpellCraft roll is you do not even get to roll it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Or do I have that wrong?

I would say it heavily depends on how often your friend has been right.

 

[KarinsDad]

"A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline."

You can see the holes through the translucent outline of the illusory floor panels, once you've saved.

It's the same reason a wizard can cast a Silent Image of a fogbank around his party prior to an archery duel with a band of hobgoblins. The hobs aren't interacting with the fog, so they get no save - the PCs have total concelament. The party are in the fog, and the wizard's told them it's an illusion, so they get a save with a bonus... and if they save, they can see through the fog just fine... no concealment for the hobs!

Who says that there are holes?

A three dimensional object (like a fogbank) would have a three dimensional outline, not a two dimensional one.

A translucent outline of a three dimensional object would create a translucent outlined object. Since the entire outline of the entire object is translucent and not transparent, they cannot "see through the fog just fine". The definition of translucent is that you can see through something, but not clearly.


Btw, I think Figment illusions were handled terribly in DND and crippled Figments (i.e. you know the exact dimensions of the Figment if you make your save and with your definition of a two dimensional outline, you also get to see through it). Making a saving throw should merely tell you that it is an illusion (you spot or hear minor flaws, etc.), it should not make the Figment different in appearance for you. It should work just like Glamers in that it is just revealed to be false. That's one of the worse "how magic works" rules in the book. IMO.

That's a fine rule for Phantasms, but a terrible rule for Figments.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Who says that there are holes?

I mean the holes in the floor that the figment is supposed to be concealing.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I mean the holes in the floor that the figment is supposed to be concealing.

I understood what you meant.

You must not have understood what I meant.

The illusionary figment is of wooden planks. Wooden planks are three dimensional, so although you could see the three dimensional translucent image of the illusionary planks, you cannot clearly see through the illusion of the planks itself because the 3D outline is translucent, not transparent.

There are no holes that you can see through (although the holes exist, you just cannot see through them clearly). Just 3D translucent outlines.

Ditto for the illusionary fogbank and the hobgoblins example. Just because you save does not mean you can clearly see out of it.


In the case of the illusionary floor, you put it over the entire floor of holes, you do not make a single illusion for each illusionary plank over each hole. You cannot see well through the illusionary floor even if you save, so you have to take your time carefully peering or proding at each step you take in order to make sure there isn't a hole there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The illusionary figment is of wooden planks. Wooden planks are three dimensional, so although you could see the three dimensional translucent image of the illusionary planks, you cannot clearly see through the illusion of the planks itself because the 3D outline is translucent, not transparent.

There are no holes that you can see through (although the holes exist, you just cannot see through them clearly). Just 3D translucent outlines.

And I agree with what you said earlier - I consider an outline to be two-dimensional, not three-dimensional.

What you're describing is not an outline - it's a surface. An outline is a line, not a surface.

The outline of a sphere is a circle, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[argo]

The illusionary figment is of wooden planks. Wooden planks are three dimensional, so although you could see the three dimensional translucent image of the illusionary planks, you cannot clearly see through the illusion of the planks itself because the 3D outline is translucent, not transparent.

I disagree, I don't think that a translucent image is as hard to see through as you seem to think it is

trans·lu·cent
1. Transmitting light but causing sufficient diffusion to prevent perception of distinct images.
2. Clear; lucid.

So yeah, you can't make out every detail behind a translucent image, you probably can't clearly read writting on the other side, but I hardly think you could fail to see a hole in the ground.

And think about it this way: if we go with your rulling then we have just made it effectievly impossible to save against illusions! The wizard cast the illusion of the floor to obscure the holes there, the fighter makes his save and knows the floor is an illusion and can see its transparent outline but he can't see the holes beneath the illusion? What did he gain for his sucessful save? Might as well not have a saving throw at all.