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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Foxworthy" data-source="post: 4840150" data-attributes="member: 80704">Ok.No it doesn't, but it's 100% clear that you don't understand the argument. The argument of metagaming comes after this point. You obviously had no indication that the corpse was an illusion before you made the save, merely that it was a fake corpse.You started believeing that the corpse was an illusion after you failed a disbelief check.That's the metagaming. You used the failed disbelief check as the trigger for thinking the corpse was an illusion because you freely admit that you didn't believe the corpse was an illusion till you got that check.I'm going to make this as clear as possible for you.You should have ROLEPLAYED your character as someone who thinks the corpse is fake but doesn't think an illusion is the cause. You didn't you decide to METAGAME that illusion was the reason the body was fake because you failed a disbelief check.No one is saying you shouldn't have been able to investigate the body further, they are just syaing it was bad roleplaying and metagaming to tell another player to cast detect magic to reveal it as an illusion. If you had told them to cast detect magic to see if the kama was invisible, or if the body was under the effects of gentle repose you would have been fine.Your DM most likely cut off all investigation because you couldn't seperate that because you knew it was an illusion that your character didn't. You took actions based on what you knew, not what your character knew.Your DM probably felt cheated, since what you did was the equivilant of not writing down the damage you've taken to hit points.Yeah the illusion is revealed to be an illusion but it's still there as a translucent outline. For a figment or phantasm at least. No, your convinced that nothing is amiss [in regards to it being an illusion] So you can still believe it's fake, not just as a result of illusion.I don't see this being all the possible outcomes any more. The rules say "A failed saving throw indicates that the character fails to notice something is amiss". This is an ambiguous statement with several possible interpretations. I now lean toward the following interpretation: This "something amiss" means something about the makeup of the illusion that reveals it clearly and unambiguously as illusory. After all, it causes the character to see right through the illusion directly after succeeding on the will save.Not valid RAW at all. The noticed that nothing was amiss with the wall in regards to an illusion. That's what the characters believe, they can fully believe that something is wrong with the wall otherwise.Unless the players go around checking every wall in the game world to see if they are illusions. Because it's perfectly possible that the lich created a pathway that leads to a dead end to delay or make the characters waste time. Or that a different wall was illusionary. For all we know one of the rooms could have had two illusionary walls and this room none as a more devious way of tricking the players.That doesn't rule out detect magic though, because for all the players know it could be a wall of stone blocking their way that they could dispell and even the loremaster knows that not all walls are illusions.Though frankly if the players wanted to take the easy route [which is what treating it like an illusion even though they failed] they could just throw a rock at the wall cause inanimate objects aren't effected by walls.And if they encountered one wall why didn't they just cast detect magic and maintain it?Really it seems like the players are acting in the worse possible way in order to support a viewpoint against a spell that is made specifically to support that viewport. I mean basing RAW on a spell that's not RAW and how players react to that is a bit odd.No. Nothing in the rules say that only spells with the Mind Affecting descriptor can dictate actions. If you were playing a plant based character and someone cast command plants on you you'd still be subject to control even though it's not mind affecting.Also, all illusion spells affect the mind. They mention that in the description of the illusion school. They just don't have the Mind Affecting descriptor because the game designers didn't want the spells that protect from Mind Affecting spells to protect against illusions.No, metagaming is acting on out of character information in character. If a player reads a module ahead of time and reacts to everything becaus ehe knows it's coming, he's metagaming.That has nothing to do with expectations.Your equating metagaming to bad roleplaying, and while in this case both are true it's not always so.You can metagame without being a bad roleplayer and you can roleplay badly without metagaming.Some groups may be fine with people metagaming [and probably all groups allow a bit of it], but that doesn't change what it is or make it not exist.</blockquote>

Verification