Illusion Question

Thanee said:
Ok, there might be situations, where you cannot easily discern, which is the illusion, but usually you should be able to by using arcane sight.

You look at something, your spell tells you it's an illusion.
How much more proof do you need to say, that it is an illusion you are looking at?

Bye
Thanee
Just one example - suppose you look at a wagon loaded with hay, being pulled by four horses and with a peasant in the driver's seat. And you detect that there is an illusion in the area. Is the whole thing an illusion? Are the horses actually half-fiendish dire donkeys with illusions cast on them? Is the peasant actually Elminster taking a joy ride? Are the hay bales really a dozen kobold ninja? You don't know.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

shilsen said:
Just one example - suppose you look at a wagon loaded with hay, being pulled by four horses and with a peasant in the driver's seat. And you detect that there is an illusion in the area. Is the whole thing an illusion? Are the horses actually half-fiendish dire donkeys with illusions cast on them? Is the peasant actually Elminster taking a joy ride? Are the hay bales really a dozen kobold ninja? You don't know.

Of course, you don't know that.

But you know exactly that there is an illusion and where the illusion is (you should even be able to tell, which part of what you see is illusory, since you know the location of all magic auras within your sight) and that grants you an automatic (no roll) disbelief (p. 173 PHB 3.5). And thanks to that, you can then see through the illusion, which cannot fool you anymore.

As I said above, how much more proof do you need?
You know it's an illusion, you know it isn't real!

Do you need to know what is "hidden" by an illusion, to be able to see through it?
So it's simply impossible to see through, since you'll never be able to know that?

Like you poke through an illusionary floor, but since you don't know what's beneath it (I mean, it could be ninjas, after all :p), you are still fooled by the illusion, and will surely walk on and fall through the floor...

Bye
Thanee
 

Thanee said:
Ok, there might be situations, where you cannot easily discern, which is the illusion, but usually you should be able to by using arcane sight.

You look at something, your spell tells you it's an illusion.
How much more proof do you need to say, that it is an illusion you are looking at?
The arcane sight tells you it's an illusion. The point is that just because you know it's an illusion doesn't mean you know it isn't real, or you can disbelieve it. Some illusions can be partly real, and others can't be disbelieved at all. You need "incontrovertible proof that an illusion isn't real" to get the automatic disbelief thing. At best, the arcane sight would count as studying the illusion, and so grant a free Will save.
 

Illusions are not real, that's why they are called illusions.

Only shadow magic is partially real, but the illusion it creates is still not real, but illusory.

I read that incontrovertible proof that it isn't real as an incontrovertible proof that it is an illusion (you obviously differentiate here).

Bye
Thanee
 

Well, let's just say that I don't think a 1st level spell (detect magic, which is what arcane sight emulates) is supposed to be an automatic illusion-breaker.
 


Actually, the "Nystul's Magic Aura" spell would seem to be strong evidence, proceeding on a logical basis, that arcane sight would not automatically defeat illusions. Using that spell, an item can be given an aura of illusion. It isn't an illusion - but to someone looking at it with Arcane Sight, it would appear precisely the same as an illusionary copy. Since he wouldn't be able to "see through" the real object as a result of this, why would he be able to see through the illusionary copy, if all the information he receives is exactly the same?
 


Remove ads

Top