Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 2278340" data-attributes="member: 1288">Hmm...While I couldn't swear to whether it was a real rule or a house rule, I know that while playing older editions, we always ruled that illusions did damage until/unless they were disbelieved (though the damage was secretly never lethal).I wonder how it would impact balance to bring this rule back into 3E. Maybe treat all illusion spells like the &quot;shadow&quot; spells--that is, they do a percentage of the damage they would normally do. However, this damage is always nonlethal damage, and as soon as someone successfully disbelieves, they are no longer subject to that damage.On the one hand, this makes illusions a lot more potent, and might require they are nerfed in some other way in exchange. OTOH, as this thread suggests, a lot of folks feel illusions are already underpowered.Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten fruit?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 2278340, member: 1288"] Hmm... While I couldn't swear to whether it was a real rule or a house rule, I know that while playing older editions, we always ruled that illusions did damage until/unless they were disbelieved (though the damage was secretly never lethal). I wonder how it would impact balance to bring this rule back into 3E. Maybe treat [i]all[/i] illusion spells like the "shadow" spells--that is, they do a percentage of the damage they would normally do. However, this damage is always nonlethal damage, and as soon as someone successfully disbelieves, they are no longer subject to that damage. On the one hand, this makes illusions a lot more potent, and might require they are nerfed in some other way in exchange. OTOH, as this thread suggests, a lot of folks feel illusions are already underpowered. Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten fruit? [/QUOTE]

Verification