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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9666072" data-attributes="member: 2629">You make a few assumptions that underlie your assertions relating to this limited subset of illusions.  Here are some challenges to those assumptions:You speak as if attacking an illusion is always an option, but you can't always attack an illusion. First, you state that being able to identify an illusion with an attack renders the ability to identify with investigation (without physical interaction is "meaningless").  There are many situations, particularly outside combat, where attacking the illusion is not an option.  As such, the ability to discern without the illusion being physically contacted is relevant in a significant number of situations.  For example: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where the illusion is of something of value you are not allowed to touch and you do not know if it is an illusion or not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where you can see the illusion, but it is behind a transparent barrier.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where weapons are not permitted to be used.</li> </ul>Example: The PCs are hired to protect an art gallery, but one of the paintings was stolen before they even began to work.  They would not be allowed to attack or even touch the paintings for fear of damage to them.  If they suspect the trick, they'd need to touch them (breaking rules of the job) or use investigation, generally.One might argue that these situations would seem rare and would only occur with contrivance.  That is mostly true - and is a feature, not a bug.  Someone is making an illusion.  They are attempting to deceive.  They want to set up the situation so that the illusion is harder to detect.  These meaningful restrictions on illusions limit their use intentionally.   They create a story as part of the social and exploration pillars of the game.  You mistakenly say there is not guidance on interaction. Second, you assert there is no guidance on what constitutes physical interaction.  There is, and you quote it.   “Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, since things can pass through it.” Because things can be observed passing through the illusion (usually through sight, but potentially with other senses), we can tell it is an illusion.  If we observe something passing through the object we have revealed it through physical interaction.  You assume there are only two ways to discern these illusions. The rules specifically identify the investigation and physical interaction route, but the spell language does not limit to discernment to these two options.  Discerning's most common definition means perception - but it is not limited inherently to sight.  If your PC knew what a troglodyte was, and found a sleeping one in a tunnel, but noted no smell of troglodyte and then said, "I'm pretty sure this is an illusion - troglodytes smell and this one doesn't", the DM could make the call that they discerned through the lack of odor that the troglodyte is an illusion.  Note that the spells do not specify that a caster can see through the illusions inherently. If they want to see through their illusion of a wall, they need to discern it is an illusion.  Do you require a wizard to put a finger in the wall illusion to be able to see through it?  Or do you allow them to discern it automatically because they created the illusion and know what to look for to 'discern' it is an illusion? Now for an assumption of mine: An investigation check can be made to discern the illusion, but what is an investigation check doing?  It is used to figure something out.  You're using it go to from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing through observation of a notable clue and interpretation of it.  In this case, you're looking for flaws in the illusion that give it away, right?  This is not explicitly spelled out in great detail (likely due to the restriction on how much space they can devote to any given spell in the books), but it makes sense.  So, what if you're not looking to find a flaw, but instead have been told there is a flaw by someone that has seen it already?  You no longer need to investigate to find the flaw - so long as you can see the flaw that has been pointed out, you can discern the illusion.  If my friend Bob saw an arrow hit the illusion before I arrived, Bob can see through it, but I can't.  Bob can tell me an arrow passed through the illusion, and I might thus suspect that it is an illusion, but I can't discern it unless I interact with it or investigate it to confirm.  However, if Bob investigated it and noted a defect that they can communicate to me, it is up to the DM on whether they can convey that information to me in a way I can see.  Would that require a perception check, instead?  That is up to the DM.  They need to figure out what it takes.  I don't roll a perception check to find a coin on a table or see an arrow shot at a target, usually ... so the DM needs to determine if the flaw is something that requires a perception check.Other 'Solutions': If you stick with a more common and traditional interpretation of the rules for this subset of illusions, there are ways to beef them up that do not require you to change how they work for everyone, but allow a specific spellcaster (or spellcasters) to benefit from more leniency.  In my setting, for example, there are guilds for wizards of each subclass.  Membership allows you certain privileges (copying spells, discounts, lodging while traveling, easily identify guild members, etc...) and other subclass specific benefits.  In the case of Illusionists, you get a common ring that allows you to buff illusions a bit.  One of them is that you can upcast an illusion spell by one (additional?) level and strike the sentence "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image" from an illusion spell if it exists in the description.  This gives the illusion of a wall some of the same benefits as a fog spell in terms of blocking sight.</blockquote>

Verification