I want to believe

[Moff_Tarkin]

Also, as Milo sort of mentioned, I was not convinced it was an illusion. Nor were the other PCs necessarily. We just figured something was wrong. The kama the vampire used was not in the coffin, and its never that easy to kill a vampire (coffin was right next to him). These things were reason enough for us to believe that maybe he was tricking us, so we decided to search and see if there were any cracks/holes leading further down to and escape route or some such.

The DM keep saying that we were using out of character info. That we only suspected an illusion become some one was allowed to roll a disbelieve check. But we all thought something was up before any such check was actually rolled. In fact, that’s what allowed us to get the check in the first place.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Ok, here is some extra information.

The body in the coffin was a programmed illusion. I think that’s what the spell was called. We did decapitate and burn it. One PC argued, rightfully I believe, that our “interaction” with the illusion gave us a saving throw. The DM said that interaction doesn’t give you a free save, you have to have a reason to disbelieve. He said that the illusion of the body was there to fool us into thinking we had killed the vampire for good. Therefore, by decapitating and burning it, we played into what the illusion wanted us to do, and as such got no save for that interaction. Essentially, you don’t get a save for interaction if you interact with the illusion in the way the illusion expects you to.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation is that while the “save for interaction” argument was going on, the DM actually said, “I don’t care what the book says”

OK, so programmed image has a trigger associated with it, so maybe either decapitation or burning. IMHO if you both burned and decapitated the illusion, then the illusion would not have reacted accordingly and you would know it's an illusion.

Also IMHO, the illusion doesn't have any tactile component, so I believe your DM should have given a Will save to anyone who participated. This certainly qualifies as interacting with the illusion, no matter that the illusion was designed to be interacted with in this way.

 

[Anguish]

One PC argued, rightfully I believe, that our “interaction” with the illusion gave us a saving throw.

That's how most illusions work, yes.

The DM said that interaction doesn’t give you a free save, you have to have a reason to disbelieve.

That on the other hand isn't how most illusions work. The save for interaction is meant to encompass whatever imperfection exists with an illusion. Realistically, the kama should have been present. Attempting to loot the coffin counts as interaction, just like burning the corpse. One save. Fail and you think you just stowed a kama in your backpack, burned a body, and scattered the ashes.

Once the characters fail their save, the situation needs to be over. The illusion school can be "gamed" by smart players. That's not fair. Mechanically a player can't keep coming up with reasons to give their character new Reflex saves against a fireball, so why should they be allowed to against an illusion? Much like charm person, the player may "know better" but the character doesn't.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation is that while the “save for interaction” argument was going on, the DM actually said, “I don’t care what the book says”

We weren't at the table, so it's hard to judge. It can be very frustrating to DM to a group that is gaming the rules. It's easy to start - in a nutshell - making crap up to make the players stop. The problem is that sooner or later the players will call you on your BS and the very authority you were trying to protect is shattered.

What I'm hearing from this whole scenario is that the DM set up a situation with a BBEG, at least one player didn't like the dice result of a saving throw and started applying his vast intellect to a situation he shouldn't have. This turned into a rules debate in the middle of a session, which is always a bad idea, and everyone ended up angry. Lose-lose.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I guess the whole situation might not seem as fishy to my character as it does to me as a player, and maybe that’s why the DM say my character doesn’t investigate further. I just think you shouldn’t have to believe everything is fine because you missed a save.

Let me use a Sense Motive vs. Bluff example, as applied in a real life scenario to make it more relatable. There is a guy who games with us that is a total dope; he always takes my dice because he thinks it is funny. Lets say I go to the bathroom and come back to find my dice missing. I am automatically going to suspect him and call him out on it. Now lets say he makes a Bluff check, “It wasn’t me,” and manages to beat my Sense Motive. Because he beat my Sense Motive with his Bluff I am not able to sense any deception from him. But I am still going to be suspicious and think that he is the one who took my dice. Just because I cant pick up on anything doesn’t mean I don’t believe something is there. The same can be said for illusions. Just because I failed a save doesn’t mean that I don’t still suspect something.

 

[MichaelK]

Um, problem.

1) Programmed Illusion doesn't work that way. The DM needs to reread the spell description and take note that it includes only Visual (sight), Auditory (hearing), Olfactory (smell) and Thermal (heat) elements. The word he's looking for is Tactile, meaning to touch.

The DM’s stance was that, if you fail your will save, you believe the illusion completely and would no longer doubt it or take any action to expose it.

It's a figment. Those aren't mind-affecting. It can't make you magically ignore the fact that a Karma vanished into thin air or stop you using logic. No matter how convincing its special effects.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Ooops, just realized I said programmed image, it was actually permanent image. I think they are about the same however. I don’t think either one has tactile, which means it would be a bad trick, as we couldn’t feel it and our hands would go right through it.

Our DM admits to not being a rules expert, but I think the biggest problem we have is the modules he has been running. The dungeon crawl modules from Goodman Games I believe. We keep coming across crazy things in these modules that show a complete lack of understanding of the basic rules. Has anyone else ran through some of these modules? What was your experience?

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Ooops, just realized I said programmed image, it was actually permanent image. I think they are about the same however. I don’t think either one has tactile, which means it would be a bad trick, as we couldn’t feel it and our hands would go right through it.

Our DM admits to not being a rules expert, but I think the biggest problem we have is the modules he has been running. The dungeon crawl modules from Goodman Games I believe. We keep coming across crazy things in these modules that show a complete lack of understanding of the basic rules. Has anyone else ran through some of these modules? What was your experience?

Actually, I just realized I got programmed image wrong -- you don't even see the illusion until the trigger goes off. So if this had been the spell used, the trigger would have been something like "opening the coffin," at which point the image would probably be static.

However, as you said, the spell was permanent image. An argument could be made for having the image react appropriately, as long as the caster is concentrating.

Regarding DCC: Yes, there are some that have great ideas that are poorly implemented, IMHO. This might be one of those, and the DM did the best he could trying to implement according to the "spirit" of the idea, as opposed to a strict adherence to the rules. Also, it might end up being more fun if the illusion works the way the DM wanted it to.

 

[milo]

If he wanted it to be that realistic he would have had to use polymorph any object on a dead body and gentle repose every few days to keep it fresh. Throw in some weak magical gear(a +1 kama, +1 armor that looks the same as what he was wearing, etc.) At that point it would have been pretty much foolproof.
I might actually use this trick at some point now that I am thinking of it though.

 

[Anguish]

I guess the whole situation might not seem as fishy to my character as it does to me as a player, and maybe that’s why the DM say my character doesn’t investigate further. I just think you shouldn’t have to believe everything is fine because you missed a save.

Let me use a Sense Motive vs. Bluff example, as applied in a real life scenario to make it more relatable. There is a guy who games with us that is a total dope; he always takes my dice because he thinks it is funny. Lets say I go to the bathroom and come back to find my dice missing. I am automatically going to suspect him and call him out on it. Now lets say he makes a Bluff check, “It wasn’t me,” and manages to beat my Sense Motive. Because he beat my Sense Motive with his Bluff I am not able to sense any deception from him. But I am still going to be suspicious and think that he is the one who took my dice. Just because I cant pick up on anything doesn’t mean I don’t believe something is there. The same can be said for illusions. Just because I failed a save doesn’t mean that I don’t still suspect something.

See, this is the viewpoint that's going to get a DM's panties in a bunch. The point is that a successful Bluff effectively convinces the target of something. Otherwise the utility is effectively zero. Bluffing your way past a guard instead of killing him... impossible because the guard knows he's not supposed to let halflings in, and you're a halfling. A DM is supposed to apply circumstance modifiers to various checks as appropriate. If a guard has been forewarned especially against halflings and told what halflings look like and you show up and try to Bluff him, he gets a bonus on his Sense Motive. If he still rolls a 1 and the halfling rolls a 20, he buys your excuse that you're not that kind of halfling, but rather an ogre who's been polymorphed. The guard doesn't get to keep scratching his head and begging for additional excuses to bop you on the head. He just believes.

The problem is that you don't want the rules to be evenly enforced against you. I'm sure that if you were playing an illusionist wizard, you'd expect that your illusions actually work, instead of leaving the viewer skeptical. "Well, it sure looks like my wife, but she's dead and I failed my save, but she's dead and I don't want to go to her even though I failed my save." You'd throw your dice at the DM.

Spells are magic. They work the way they say they work. In your original post you admitted that a save was given, and failed. That's where role-play is supposed to kick in and obey the strictures of the results.

The point I'm making here, to use your example, is that if you come back and accuse your fellow player of taking your dice and he Bluffs you telling you that you took them with you to the bathroom specifically to protect against his kleptomania and you fail to Sense Motive, you turn around and march back to the bathroom. You search the bathroom high and low. You check and recheck your pockets. You check the path back to the game table. You think hard about if you made a side-trip to the Mountain Dew section of the fridge and check for your dice there. Because you got Bluffed.

Maybe your DM screwed up. Probably even. But IMHO it sounds like someone screwed up worse, not accepting the results of a saving throw.

 

[irdeggman]

Also, as Milo sort of mentioned, I was not convinced it was an illusion. Nor were the other PCs necessarily. We just figured something was wrong. The kama the vampire used was not in the coffin, and its never that easy to kill a vampire (coffin was right next to him). These things were reason enough for us to believe that maybe he was tricking us, so we decided to search and see if there were any cracks/holes leading further down to and escape route or some such.

The DM keep saying that we were using out of character info. That we only suspected an illusion become some one was allowed to roll a disbelieve check. But we all thought something was up before any such check was actually rolled. In fact, that’s what allowed us to get the check in the first place.

First off how much information do the PCs know about how easy it is to kill a vampire?

Not the players, the PCs (this IMO is the heart of the matter keeping what the players and the PCs know separate - and alwys something difficult to know).

Now unless the PCs have dealt with vampires before there is no reason to expect them to "klnow" how easy it is to destroy one.

If you wanted to use Knowledge (Relgion) checks to see what your PC knew - that might work - but it sounds like the Players assumed their PCs know everything, a major problem with keeping in the spirit of role-playing.

Note that you can't do a knowledge check untrained and a successful roll will only give you some "basic" information about the subject - never, ever everything in the MM. Well you can do a knowledge check untrained - it is a an Intelligence check but you never gain anything more then "common" knowledge (essentially what a result of a "10" would give).