Way to block detection of illusions?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Edit: Ok, it´s kosher until the statue breaks or the pieces become disjoined. That would mean that you can create the illusion of several orcs, as long they are touching each other, or are joined by invisible, elastic rubber bands

Ooh! Or have illusory pieces of floor connecting their feet - making the whole thing look a lot like miniatures on a moveable piece of grid!

I like that thought!!!!!

 

[Felix]

After all, I can Highten a Silent Image to 6th level and have a mute red dragon that has no odor nor warmth, but would still have a higher save DC than the exact same illusion made with the "lesser" Major Image spell cast as a 3rd level spell, no?

You could. And you would have compensated for the lack of odor and warmth by infusing your spell with the strength of your mind. So you're casting a "Greater" spell than the "lesser" Major Image. So yes, it will have a higher Save DC regardless of lack of body odor. Maybe the affected think they're upwind from the thing, eh?

Also, size /= HD, nor CR.

Almost right.

Neither HD nor CR necessitates Size.

On the other hand, much larger creatures generally have higher hit dice than other unclassed creatures (because really, anything can have high HD if you advance them or give them class levels.) And when they have the benefit of larger size and more hit dice, (granting them higher BAB, saves, skills, feats, etc) they'll have a higher CR.

I'm not saying it's a coverall, but it is a cover. You will not have a 1st level illusionist fooling the town guard with the silent image of a sleeping colossal ancient red wyrm.

After all, why would you make an illusion of an orc brandishing an axe, when for the same spell you could have a beholder?

Why indeed?

Because you need to convince others that you're friends with orcs?
Because they're expecting an orc?
Because you don't want them to run screaming away from a hideous floating eyeball ohmyGodwhatisthat?

It's not like less dangerous creatures have less details to copy... my brother the illustrator talks about how much time it takes him to draw leaves on a tree. Leaves are neither large, nor have many hit points, nor will they scare people off, but they have just as much attention that can be paid to them as any fell beast from the pit. So it seems silly to me to limit the ferociousness of what a mage can illude to the images CR, or HD.

What does make sense is to limit him on:

His experience. No beholders unless you really actually do know about them. Meaning, generally, that only more powerful illusionist will be using them. But could not an apprentice of that mage do so as well in immitation?

How many creatures he can control. Were it not for the unfortunate wording of the image spells, I would say "one creature per two levels" or something like that. Seems like as he gains power, he would gain the ability to manipulate multiple discrete images (regardless of that image's CR/HD/whatever), but this would be a house rule.

The problem comes when the statue breaks in two pieces, as I'm sure you well know.

Oh... I can see it coming...

as long they are touching each other, or are joined by invisible, elastic rubber bands

Quick was his answer, and apropope,
but Nail's off down the slippery slope!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You could. And you would have compensated for the lack of odor and warmth by infusing your spell with the strength of your mind. So you're casting a "Greater" spell than the "lesser" Major Image. So yes, it will have a higher Save DC regardless of lack of body odor. Maybe the affected think they're upwind from the thing, eh?

There are no "affected." The illusion is not a mind-affecting spell. It just makes it look like something's there. Those who fail their saves are "affected" only as much as they would be "affected" by a real orc. Less, really, considering the way orcs usually affect people.

 

[Felix]

There are no "affected."

Of course you are correct. I just thought that this one word nicely conveyed the idea of "people with line of sight to the illusion spell" quite well, and prefering one word to many, used it. I cry your pardon.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Those who fail their saves are "affected" only as much as they would be "affected" by a real orc. Less, really, considering the way orcs usually affect people.

LOL.

How many creatures he can control. Were it not for the unfortunate wording of the image spells, I would say "one creature per two levels" or something like that. Seems like as he gains power, he would gain the ability to manipulate multiple discrete images (regardless of that image's CR/HD/whatever), but this would be a house rule.

Well, gee, is there no other way to make illusions of multiple creatures with one spell?

*studies SRD*

And...no, there isn't. That doesn't seem right.

Does anyone know if this was possible in older editions?
Maybe it was a balance problem?

 

[Twowolves]

You could. And you would have compensated for the lack of odor and warmth by infusing your spell with the strength of your mind. So you're casting a "Greater" spell than the "lesser" Major Image. So yes, it will have a higher Save DC regardless of lack of body odor. Maybe the affected think they're upwind from the thing, eh?

You miss my point entirely. Obviously, for whatever in-game rationale, the Heightened spell will have a higher save DC. I'm saying that there should be some guidelines, such as a penalty for each missing sensory input, levied against such spells. An illusion of a Wall of Fire made with Silent Image has no heat, thus there should be a bonus to save against it, for example.



Almost right.

Neither HD nor CR necessitates Size.

On the other hand, much larger creatures generally have higher hit dice than other unclassed creatures (because really, anything can have high HD if you advance them or give them class levels.) And when they have the benefit of larger size and more hit dice, (granting them higher BAB, saves, skills, feats, etc) they'll have a higher CR.

I'm not saying it's a coverall, but it is a cover. You will not have a 1st level illusionist fooling the town guard with the silent image of a sleeping colossal ancient red wyrm.



Again, you miss what I'm getting at. There are plenty of very very nasty creatures out there that are not of tremendous size, so an illusion is not realistically limited in that way. A beholder is not so big that a 1st lvl Illusionist can't make one with a Silent Image spell, even if he can't make the "sleeping colossal ancient red wyrm", and I'd dare say the town guard would be scared suffiently by it. Ergo, it's not a limitation at all.

What I'm trying to say is that there should be a guideline as to what, exactly, the upper limit should be on what an Illusionist can "realisticly" create. Personally, I'd base it on ranks in Knowledge/Arcana, something like nothing with more HD than you have ranks in the skill, but that's just off the top of my head.


It's not like less dangerous creatures have less details to copy... my brother the illustrator talks about how much time it takes him to draw leaves on a tree. Leaves are neither large, nor have many hit points, nor will they scare people off, but they have just as much attention that can be paid to them as any fell beast from the pit. So it seems silly to me to limit the ferociousness of what a mage can illude to the images CR, or HD.

What does make sense is to limit him on:

His experience. No beholders unless you really actually do know about them. Meaning, generally, that only more powerful illusionist will be using them. But could not an apprentice of that mage do so as well in immitation?


Again, I'd like to see some suggestions on how to handle the saves for illusions of differing complexity. As you point out, making an illusion of a tree, with all the leaves swaying in a light breeze, is probably harder than a rock. So why aren't the saves different for each? Making an illusion of a dwarven warrior in full plate inlaid in silver, swinging a flaming warhammer, with gems woven into his beard and a gold tooth monogrammed with his initials, should be MUCH harder to make than, say, a patch of immobile green slime, shouldn't it? And you yourself said that the difference in making an image of a beholder and a tree is experience, correct? How do you measure experience then? Caster Level? Ranks in Knowledge/Arcana? The Spell Focus/Illusion feat? You say that "only more powerful illusionists will be using" images of beholders, and all I'm saying is some sort of suggestion as to what "more powerful" means in game terms.

In summary, I think that the following is needed for adjudicating illusions:

1) a measure of the most powerful creature a caster can realisticly create, or;
2) a number of creatures in any given caster's arsenal of effective critters
3) guidelines for determining the effect on believability (and therefore saves) for illusions that are missing key sensory elements
and 4) perhaps guidelines for bonuses for illusions that are particularly believable, or perhaps some interface between skills such as Bluff and Intimidate and convincing illusions.

Twowolves

 

[Felix]

An illusion of a Wall of Fire made with Silent Image has no heat, thus there should be a bonus to save against it, for example.

It does have a bonus to save when compared to Major Image! A +2 bonus. And if you should [Heighten] it to get rid of that weakness, then, well, you've bloody well gotten rid of that weakness, and shouldn't have that penalty anymore.

No heat? Right. Easier to disbelieve, right? Yep. So use a better spell for your wall of fire if you want the DC to be higher.

Tell me this... should a Silent Image of a plaster wall have the same bonus to save? Walls don't make sounds, give off extraordinary amounts of heat, nor do they smell too much. But if you're going to penalize the spell for lacking those things, then you'll be saying "that wall over there is too quiet to be real..."

If, on the other hand, you're penalizing individual illusions (not penalize the wall, but rather penalize the illusion of a firewall) then you've discovered Circumstance Modifiers. Apply those as liberally as you like, but don't make them a feature of the spell itself.

There are plenty of very very nasty creatures out there that are not of tremendous size.

No kidding, which is why I said

Neither HD nor CR necessitates Size.

an illusion is not realistically limited in that way.

If a 1st level illusionist can't manage the effect because of a size restriction he is limited by it. So realistically, truly, actually, and metaphysically if you like, the illusionist has been limited.

But limits do not mean that people cannot find options within those limits, and smaller fiercer creatures are a viable option. Colossal red dragons are not.

and I'd dare say the town guard would be scared suffiently by it [a beholder].

So let them be scared. Are you trying to say, "no, no little gnome illusionist, you can't be effective until you're at least 5th level." The guard will ring the alarm, summon archers, or do whatever it is guards do when freaked.

Or

If they are used to, or trained to expect, illusion magic, then they'll behave differently.

Personally, I'd base it on ranks in Knowledge/Arcana, something like nothing with more HD than you have ranks in the skill, but that's just off the top of my head.

Oh... so if it has a lot of HD, then it becomes complex and the illusionist can't do it. Is that you're saying? Tell me you're not, please; I wouldn't want to miss your point again.

Again, I'd like to see some suggestions on how to handle the saves for illusions of differing complexity.

I'd handle them in the regular way. Roll a d20, add the Will save mod, and try to beat the set DC of 10+spell level+ability mod.

If they have incontrovertable physical proof that that thing isn't real, they auto-save.

If someone points out that it's an illusion, they get +4 to their next save.

If it doesn't have sound, then golly, it must be really quiet!

So why aren't the saves different for each?

Because it's the same spell?
Because it's a realistic looking rock?
Because it's also a realistic looking tree?

Making an illusion of a dwarven warrior in full plate inlaid in silver, swinging a flaming warhammer, with gems woven into his beard and a gold tooth monogrammed with his initials, should be MUCH harder to make than, say, a patch of immobile green slime, shouldn't it?

That sounds reasonable... Unless for some reason the illusionist doesn't have the requisite ranks in Knowledge(arcane) to match the HD of the patch of green slime, and yet his one rank allows him to create an image of that 1 HD dwarven warrior in ceremonial armor.

And you yourself said that the difference in making an image of a beholder and a tree is experience, correct?

Yeah. A tree I've seen. And were I an illusionist I could fashion a figment of one. But I've never seen a beholder, and so I would have a hard time coming up with an accurate image of a beholder.

But what I could do is create an image of this creature that a floating eyeball with teeth from my own imagination. It might not look exactly like a beholder, but it does look like a hideous floating eyeball. Who says town guards would know the diff?

To answer the question, yeah, I said "experience". As in, have you "experienced" this creature before... or "In My Humble Experience".

How do you measure experience then? Caster Level? Ranks in Knowledge/Arcana? The Spell Focus/Illusion feat?

Common sense...?

If the character has seen the thing, he's seen it, and can produce an image of it. No "measuring" required my empiricist friend.

You say that "only more powerful illusionists will be using" images of beholders,

Nice half-quote. Left out the "generally" part did you. Clever.

Follow me here:
--More powerful mages have been around longer than 1st level mages, yeah?
--More powerful mages got more powerful by doing stuff, yeah?
--A beholder puts a hurting on mages, what with anti-magic and Fort-save stuff, right?

So, if a mage is both alive and has faught with beholders, it seems reasonable to say that he's probably a higher level mage. So, generally, only more powerful illusionists will be using images of beholders, because they're the ones who have seen and survived encounters with beholders. They're the ones with more life experiences, and thus have more to draw on, barring imagination.

and all I'm saying is some sort of suggestion as to what "more powerful" means in game terms.

I don't know that "what you have done so far in the campaign" is a game term, but there you go. That a good enough suggestion?

1) a measure of the most powerful creature a caster can realisticly create,

Powerful does not mean detailed, as your 10HD green slime and 1HD dwarf have pointed out.

2) a number of creatures in any given caster's arsenal of effective critters

Somewhere between "What have you seen" and "What can you imagine". I think those are good starting points.

3) guidelines for determining the effect on believability (and therefore saves) for illusions that are missing key sensory elements

The next time my thief walks by Silenced, I'll be sure to let my DM know that I am lacking a crucial sensory output, and therefore the guards should consider me an illusion and leave me be.

Wait... they don't even get a save until they interact with me, so they'd still have to move out to apprehend me... meaning they would do the same thing with a Silent Image... and their save would be easier because it's a weaker, lower level spell... facinating.

But if you really want to penalize illusionists for "overreaching" with low-level spells, then use Circumstance Bonuses and call it a day. Don't screw with the spell when the mechanics for adjusting DC mods is already there.

4) perhaps guidelines for bonuses for illusions that are particularly believable, or perhaps some interface between skills such as Bluff and Intimidate and convincing illusions.

Something I like.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Of course you are correct. I just thought that this one word nicely conveyed the idea of "people with line of sight to the illusion spell" quite well, and prefering one word to many, used it. I cry your pardon.

Well, not trying to be picky, but I think that in this discussion it's important not to confuse figments with phantasms. This emphasizes the question of "what does it mean to save against a figment," which is quickly becoming a pet issue of mine and is important to consider when examining what an illusionist can get away with. Especially against a party that knows he's an illusionist. Phantasms are really easy to adjudicate, by comparison.

It does have a bonus to save when compared to Major Image! A +2 bonus. And if you should [Heighten] it to get rid of that weakness, then, well, you've bloody well gotten rid of that weakness, and shouldn't have that penalty anymore.

No heat? Right. Easier to disbelieve, right? Yep. So use a better spell for your wall of fire if you want the DC to be higher.

Tell me this... should a Silent Image of a plaster wall have the same bonus to save? Walls don't make sounds, give off extraordinary amounts of heat, nor do they smell too much. But if you're going to penalize the spell for lacking those things, then you'll be saying "that wall over there is too quiet to be real..."

If, on the other hand, you're penalizing individual illusions (not penalize the wall, but rather penalize the illusion of a firewall) then you've discovered Circumstance Modifiers. Apply those as liberally as you like, but don't make them a feature of the spell itself.

Well, sort of. You haven't actually got rid of minor image's weakness by Heightening it. It has the same save as Major Image, yes, but it's missing sensory aspects. By the RAW, there is no indication that these aspects affect the believability of the Image in any way. Invoking circumstance penalties is a bit of a cop-out, since you'd think they'd specify some kind of system within the spells that describes how this would work, if it were intended to be an issue. Also, if you don't interact with it, you don't get a save at all, no matter how unbelievable the effect is. A large, silent ogre can't be disbelieved unless you touch it or study it closely.

 

[Slife]

A large, silent ogre can't be disbelieved unless you touch it or study it closely.

Vhat? He is merely ze strong, zilent type, no?

 

[Twowolves]

Wow, way to be intenionally obtuse! Nice work! For example:

Quote:
An illusion of a Wall of Fire made with Silent Image has no heat, thus there should be a bonus to save against it, for example.

It does have a bonus to save when compared to Major Image! A +2 bonus. And if you should [Heighten] it to get rid of that weakness, then, well, you've bloody well gotten rid of that weakness, and shouldn't have that penalty anymore.

No heat? Right. Easier to disbelieve, right? Yep. So use a better spell for your wall of fire if you want the DC to be higher.

Let me walk you through it again. Wizard A casts a Major Image of a Wall of Fire, Wizard B casts a Silent Image of the same Wall of Fire, Hieghtened to 3rd lvl. All other factors being equal, one image has sound and heat, the other doesn't, but the save DCs are exactly the same, and you see no problem with this picture??

I'm fully aware of the "magic" +2/-2 circumstance modifiers, and I think that's a good starting point for the problem of missing sensory input. However, not all senses are created equally important. Missing olfactory input on a "plaster wall" is not really missing anything. An illusion of a pile of horse manure, another equally inanimate object, should give a bonus to save for not smelling like it should. Circumstance bonus of +2? Fine, but compare the difference in a Silent Image of a human commoner with a Silent Image of an otyugh. Not being able to smell the commoner won't raise eyebrows, not being able to smell the dung beast would, but would either be as suspicious as the fact that you can't HEAR either one? I don't think so. I therefore conclude that for most characters, missing olfactory input should not grant the same level of circumstance bonus as missing auditory input in most cases. Thus, your blanket assumption that liberal use of the "one size fits all" +2/-2 circumstance modifiers is not the ultimate answer to this problem.


quote:
Tell me this... should a Silent Image of a plaster wall have the same bonus to save? Walls don't make sounds, give off extraordinary amounts of heat, nor do they smell too much. But if you're going to penalize the spell for lacking those things, then you'll be saying "that wall over there is too quiet to be real..."


No, I'm not. In THIS case, I'm saying that the Silent Image is as good as the Major Image version of the same thing, but yet it's easier to save against based solely on the levels of the spells used to make them. An image of a plaster wall made with Major Image that includes auditory, olfactory and thermal components (which obviously aren't in use) is still harder to disbelieve than the same wall made with a Silent Image spell. You seem to agree that a really really quiet plaster wall is no less believable for lacking these features. SO DO I, which is why I think that there should be a BONUS to the save DC for particularly believable Silent Images.

Penalize the DC for spells MISSING components. A silent plaster wall is not MISSING auditory components, because one wouldn't expect them in the first place. Likewise, your sneaking thief example shouldn't be penalized for being quiet, because it's not MISSING anything.

quote:
And you yourself said that the difference in making an image of a beholder and a tree is experience, correct?

Yeah. A tree I've seen. And were I an illusionist I could fashion a figment of one. But I've never seen a beholder, and so I would have a hard time coming up with an accurate image of a beholder.

But what I could do is create an image of this creature that a floating eyeball with teeth from my own imagination. It might not look exactly like a beholder, but it does look like a hideous floating eyeball. Who says town guards would know the diff?
quote:

So, you are saying you think it's fine that so long as the caster has seen and studied a creature, and it fits within the area of the spell he's casting, he can create a believable image of it. You further state that you think that the only way you can experience a powerful creature is to be of a level to have fought and survived an encounter with one. In essence, you think there is no way to make a believable image of a beholder without having fought one, and so therefore only "high level" illusionists can make an image of one. And even if you don't know how to make a believable beholder, it doesn't matter anyway, because the local rubes in this limited example haven't seen a real one either, unless "..they are used to, or trained to expect, illusion magic, then they'll behave differently." (no, guards are never trained to expect deceit, trickery, subterfuge, or in the case of fantasy worlds, *gasp* MAGIC!). Did I acurately summarize your hand-waving example of a non-arguement?

Apparantly, the apprentice illusionist had no way of observing a realistic beholder, not even when his high level mentor (who had encountered and defeated one personally in the past) makes a permanent image of one for students to study. It's also impossible that monsters could be held in captivity and studied, or that peaceful contact could be made with a beholder and studied in that way. Even if you can't make a better image of one than a beach ball with lolipops on top, it doesn't matter anyway because the bumpkins at the city gate never saw one either. Ignore the watch wizard patrolling with them, he's a local yokel as well, there's no way HE could know how crappy your Silent Image is. Nor could anyone else standing in line to enter Hypothetical City, even if the line of farmers and merchants also happened to include an adventuring party.


I believe you are confusing several of my ideas/suggestions as being contradictory, and cherrypicking examples to make them less clear. I think there should be a QUANTIFIABLE limit on what sort of things an illusionist can believeably create, be it based on skill ranks, caster level, or something as cumbersome and open to misuse as a personal "journal of critters studied". Merely falling back on the size limitation of the spell is just does not make sense, and saying "well, a lot of high HD monsters are big, and low level illusionists can't make big stuff" is NOT restrictive. I said it, you ignored that I said it and then said it again yourself. Also, I think there should be some guidelines for BONUSES as well as PENALTIES for less complex/more complex images, even when made by the same spell. Just saying the save DC changes with spell level is NOT the same thing. Thus, your non-example confusing these two ideas is moot. A COMPLEX image of the dwarven warrior should be harder to make than the simple image of the green slime, and the save DC should reflect that, even when the images were made with the same spell. And neither of them are exempt from the illusionist having to have studied each sufficiently in the past in able to make a convincing image. Complexity modifier vs. experience limitation. Two different arguements.

Once again, I'll summarize:
1) Bestiary: Limit on what can be created REALISTICLY, based on some quantifiable aspect of character experience, be in caster level, ranks in a skill, intelligence, character level, or whatnot.
2) Complexity: Guidelines for differences in save modifiers (both positive and negative) for complexity levels of images made with the same spell.
3) Missing stimuli: Suggestions for scaled save modifiers for each missing stimulus, and examples (using circumstance modifiers as a basis).
4) Skill interface: Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, any social interaction skill could potentially be profoundly affected by illusion magic, in the same exact way Polymorph spells grant a +10 bonus to Disguise checks. A nice system allowing illusions to modify or even perform some of these skills would be nice.