Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 1948364" data-attributes="member: 18093">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.</blockquote>

Verification