Handling Illusions and Spellcraft

[KarinsDad]

Is this discussion about what the rules say or what we think they should say?

Again, are you claiming that discussing BAD rules on a rules forum is not valid???

 

[argo]

Again, are you claiming that discussing BAD rules on a rules forum is not valid???

It is when there is a House Rules forum right next door.

Look, I don't think that you are going to find many people here who will argue with you that illusion magic in 3.5 is full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Mostly, I think, it is a result of trying to take magic that is best handled under free-form narative rules (square peg) and trying to implement it under a strict rules-heavy regime (round hole). If you do want to mess with illusions you are probably best off by scrapping the entire vancian magic system and comming up with something new. Otherwise you will just wind up in the sort of mess we have in this thread. I mean, really, how is "translucent means you can't see the holes in the floor" any better than "translucent means you can see holes in the floor"? In the first case you have illusionists with spells that are effectievly "saving throw: none" and in the other you have spells that, under a certain set of circumstances, are trivially easy to bypass.

Might as well stick with the RAW, it may be buggy and incossistent but at least you get treated to the same bugs and inconssistencies as everyone else.

Or there is always that house rules forum...

Later.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is when there is a House Rules forum right next door.

House rules forums are for house rule (i.e. suggestions on how to change a system).

Rules forums are for not just for RAW, but also for how to adjudicate RAW when it is hard to adjudicate it.

For example, what does translucent outline mean for audible only figments? Or, if listening to an audible only figment is enough for interaction, is looking at a visual figment enough for interaction? And what is the range for interaction? Or, what happens in a dark room separated by a lit room by a figment of a wall for those who save in the dark room and those who do not?

How are these questions adjudicated, and further, how are they consistently adjudicated from game to game?

Look, I don't think that you are going to find many people here who will argue with you that illusion magic in 3.5 is full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Mostly, I think, it is a result of trying to take magic that is best handled under free-form narative rules (square peg) and trying to implement it under a strict rules-heavy regime (round hole). If you do want to mess with illusions you are probably best off by scrapping the entire vancian magic system and comming up with something new. Otherwise you will just wind up in the sort of mess we have in this thread.

That is doubtful.

It is easy enough to fix with a few simple changes like:

1) Add touch (i.e. texture) components to Figments so that just touching it is not enough to save against it. It feels real. Give it a (very) slight hardness and some hit points if it has a touch component. You want to damage it, fine. But if it is not an illusion, you might damage your sword instead. If a Figment can have a Thermal component, why can it not have a touch component? What good is an illusion of an ice cube that is cold, but your hand goes through it?

2) Change Figments so that they work like Glamers with saves. If you save, you know it is an illusion, but that does not mean you can see through it. If you save and it has a touch component, that does not mean you can walk through it.

3) Give +10 to Figment save DCs for casual viewing/listening, +0 if carefully analyzed.

without throwing out the entire Vancian magic system. All WotC had to do is put some thought into it. There are probably other good solutions as well.

Problems solved. This even solves the "outline for audible only figments" and "what is enough interaction and at what range" and "what happens in a dark room" questions above.


But, the concept that Figments can be seen through is fine if Figments were mental illusions, but they supposedly are not. And the concept that 6th level Figments can effectively be dispelled (or at least ignored) by touching them is also bogus.

It's bad enough that True Seeing can automatically dispense with the entire school of Illusions without making Figments worthless if someone touches them.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I am considering an illusionist right now, and found that the new Shadowcraft Mage prestige class from Races of Stone fixes many of the flaws people noticed with illusions.

It provides a cloak of shadows around you at will as a free action, giving you concealment (up to 40%) that cannot be breached by use of darkvision or low-light vision. Opponants will not be able to see your somatic componants clearly or read your lips.

Next it proves a Silent Illusion ability, which removes the verbal componant from illusion spells. So, nobody can hear the spell anymore either.

Combined, it pretty much ends the "spellcraft check to ID it as an illusion" issue, which was indeed a pretty important flaw in illusions.

Next it somewhat addresses the "I interact with it and it disappears" issue by making some of your illusions (that copy other conjuation spells for example) be infused with shadow material, making them partially real. The percentage reality is 10% x spell level. For objects and substances, this means that even if you interact with it, there is a percentage chance it will remain real. The percentage is increased by a further +20% with the 5th level ability.

So, while the illusionist still has some issues, I think this prestige class brings them up to the point of at least being quite playable. The Shadowcrafter PRC from Underdark helps as well, as does a level of the Shadow Adapt PRC from the Players Guide to Faerun. There are also some fine racial (gnome) and illusionist replacement levels that help with this concept in Races of Stone and Unearthed Arcana, and some helpful stuff in Dragon Magazines #291 and #325.