Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dag 07-10-07, 03:27 PM	Hello ladies and gentleman. I would appreciate some help and feedback. This concerns the people I play with, most of them being of the old-school variety (like myself) who feel that any and all spells from the illusion school are worthless vs. Undead. Mainly this has come up when I am playing in one fo their games. A wizard might go invisible but still get swarmed with wraiths because the DM tells the player illusions dont work vs. Undead. I've kept quiet mainly because the group we play in is huge. Too many people to even roleplay, let alone get into rules debates. When I DM, however, one of the newer players who was mentored into D&D by one of these old-schoolers tried telling me the same thing about illusions and undead and I cut him off pretty quickly, telling him to worry about his own character (a fighter). Now, am I wrong here? According to the Monster manual undead are "immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)." So thusly they would be fooled by non-pattern or non-phantasmal illusions. Right? Invisibility, major image, hallucinatory terrain, disguise self, and most other illusion spells are going to affect undead the same way they fool a human, correct? Just looking for feedback and hopefully some support for when I confront my handful of old-school gamers.
lint trap 07-10-07, 04:04 PM	I am an old-school gamer, and illusions work on undead (aside from the aforementioned patterns and phantasms). Undead have normal senses, they can both see and hear, and that's all you need to be fooled by a figment.
Tempest Stormwind 07-10-07, 04:11 PM	To all so-called old-school gamers: it doesn't make sense mechanically or thematically, unless the illusion itself is mind-affecting (i.e. phantasms). Other illusions, including what most people think of when they say "illusion" (that is, figments like Silent Image or glamers like Invisibility) work on undead when they produce a sensation the undead can percieve. Don't take it from me. Take it from Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html), one of the designers of this edition.
PenderGrass 07-10-07, 05:02 PM	Take it from Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html), one of the designers of this edition. Sean was not a designer of the PHB**, MM* or DMG**, although he did contribute to several other WotC splat books (including Ghostwalk). *At least not the v3.5 MM **At least he never lists them on his online resume of books. :dragon: ****
Krusk 07-10-07, 08:19 PM	You are right, unless the illusion specifically says it is a (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) the undead is affrected normally.
Mock26 07-10-07, 08:37 PM	Are you DMing a seperate campaign with different characters? Or are you DMing the occasional adventure in the campaign in which you also play? If it is the second option then I think you need to come to a group consensus on this with all the other people who are DMing. It is better for all DM's involved to be "wrong" on how illusions interact with undead than it is for some to be "wrong" when they DM and others to be "right" when they DM. You need DM consistency in a campaign with rotating DM's, otherwise it can lead to confusion and disagreements. My take on illusions is that non-intelligent undead such as skeletons and zombies are not affected by most illusions because they have no real senses as does a living person. Their senses, in my opinion, are derived from their magical nature. Some spells, such as invisibility, do work on skeletons and zombies because I view invisibility as a kind of cloaking device. Intelligent undead, though, are fully susceptable to all illusions.
Myzery78 07-11-07, 12:09 AM	Mock while a zombie/skeleton/etc may not have functioning sensory organs thereby meaning their senses much like the rest of their existence is the result of magic they still have traditional vision(and darkvision). The idea that the weakest and easiest undead to create would be imbued with superhuman senses while Intelligent undead would be deprived of them in my opinion, makes no sense. If a 3rd level spell such as Animate Dead can confer these senses, why wouldnt a spell twice as powerful(Create Undead) be able to do the same?
Neutronium_Dragon 07-11-07, 12:23 AM	> Sean was not a designer of the PHB**, MM* or DMG**, although he did > contribute to several other WotC splat books (including Ghostwalk). He worked alongside the people who developed those books (and certainly had input into the 3E core) and his credits are more than "several" and not limited to splatbooks. Moreover, he has an established reputation for knowing what he's talking about when it comes to 3E and D&D in general (even if you don't always want to hear it). ;)
PenderGrass 07-11-07, 02:36 AM	He worked alongside the people who developed those books..... Working alongside someone and actually contributing are two different things. He is not mentioned once in any of the credit pages of v3.5 and views from some site are not core. You can respect him as much as you wish - heck, I respect Gary Gygax - but neither Sean nor Gary have an opinion that is gonna carry any more weight if they aren't listed in the core book (and I believe Gary is actually one-up on Sean in that matter of mentions in the v3.5 core books). :dragon: ****
Dag 07-11-07, 07:24 AM	Are you DMing a seperate campaign with different characters? Or are you DMing the occasional adventure in the campaign in which you also play? If it is the second option then I think you need to come to a group consensus on this with all the other people who are DMing. It is better for all DM's involved to be "wrong" on how illusions interact with undead than it is for some to be "wrong" when they DM and others to be "right" when they DM. You need DM consistency in a campaign with rotating DM's, otherwise it can lead to confusion and disagreements. Yes Mock, I am DMing different campaigns on a different night than these other DMs. We just get some of the same players now and then. You're right, if it was the same game with altering views on how illusions worked it would be unfair to the players to have such conflicting notions and it would have been handled a long time ago.
Gyrofthewastes 07-11-07, 08:10 AM	More to the point ruleswise is that undead per the RAW do have humanoid-style senses regardless of what house rules Mock chooses to make. And that the image spells are most definitely not mind-affecting.
Kragg Bonemeal 07-11-07, 09:10 AM	Humanoid type normal senses and vision/darkvision. Unless stated that they specifically have "lifesense", in which case an illusion of a living creature would not fool it... and I'd even have to think about whether or not Invis would work against lifesense, since tremorsense and blindsight aren't fooled by Invis. Hmmm...
lint trap 07-11-07, 01:04 PM	... and I'd even have to think about whether or not Invis would work against lifesense, since tremorsense and blindsight aren't fooled by Invis. Hmmm... It would hide the light source (the invisible being), but not the light. So the undead would know something is up, but if they were mindless I doubt they'd "know" how to handle it.
Mock26 07-11-07, 01:11 PM	Yes Mock, I am DMing different campaigns on a different night than these other DMs. We just get some of the same players now and then. You're right, if it was the same game with altering views on how illusions worked it would be unfair to the players to have such conflicting notions and it would have been handled a long time ago. Then your interpretation of how illusions work in regards to undead is 100% correct. Just be sure that your group knows about any major differences between your rulings and others, so as to avoid any confusion.
Mock26 07-11-07, 01:13 PM	Mock while a zombie/skeleton/etc may not have functioning sensory organs thereby meaning their senses much like the rest of their existence is the result of magic they still have traditional vision(and darkvision). The idea that the weakest and easiest undead to create would be imbued with superhuman senses while Intelligent undead would be deprived of them in my opinion, makes no sense. If a 3rd level spell such as Animate Dead can confer these senses, why wouldnt a spell twice as powerful(Create Undead) be able to do the same? It makes no sense to you. But, so far as my game is concerned, my interpretation is 100% correct.
Dag 07-11-07, 11:20 PM	Then your interpretation of how illusions work in regards to undead is 100% correct. Just be sure that your group knows about any major differences between your rulings and others, so as to avoid any confusion. Mock, I'm playing by the rule as it appears in the books so I feel no responsibility to tell the players how this differs from rules altered in other campaigns. When it comes up I'll set the record straight at a time that doesn't interrupt my game. If a player has been misinformed by another DM I'm not going to set out to re-educate him before starting my campaign (the other games I play in just misinterpret too many rules to make this a realistic option). He'll pick up the proper rules as the game goes on - when I use a house rule, however, I'll inform the players before the campaign starts or before I begin implementing the rule.
Mock26 07-11-07, 11:29 PM	Mock, I'm playing by the rule as it appears in the books so I feel no responsibility to tell the players how this differs from rules altered in other campaigns. When it comes up I'll set the record straight at a time that doesn't interrupt my game. If a player has been misinformed by another DM I'm not going to set out to re-educate him before starting my campaign (the other games I play in just misinterpret too many rules to make this a realistic option). He'll pick up the proper rules as the game goes on - when I use a house rule, however, I'll inform the players before the campaign starts or before I begin implementing the rule. I only suggested that you tell them just as a courtesy to point out the differences between the various DM's and their styles and interpretations of the rules and such. I also didn't mean for you to point out all the differences, just anything that might be considered major. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. For example, if in the other campaign illusions were used a LOT around undead then that would be a good example where a courtesy heads up of a "rules difference" might be in order. Also, just to clarify, I'm not criticizing you or the way you play D&D. I'm just a big fan of reducing any possible friction or misunderstandings between players and DM's. That's all. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
PenderGrass 07-12-07, 02:53 AM	Mock, I'm playing by the rule as it appears in the books so I feel no responsibility to tell the players how this differs from rules altered in other campaigns. When it comes up I'll set the record straight at a time that doesn't interrupt my game. If a player has been misinformed by another DM I'm not going to set out to re-educate him before starting my campaign (the other games I play in just misinterpret too many rules to make this a realistic option). He'll pick up the proper rules as the game goes on - when I use a house rule, however, I'll inform the players before the campaign starts or before I begin implementing the rule. Wow. That is kinda being a jerk. Regardless of whether the other groups are misinformed or not - you know that they expect things to work in certain ways - especially since you have never bothered to inform anyone that you felt differently about it and played under the same rules. You act like his "re-education" is so painful when in actuality, you could just email everyone this thread's location (or that Sean guy's site section) to show them how you are going to rule it. After all, how hard is it to provide a simple URL link in an email note? :dragon: ****
eamon 07-12-07, 11:11 AM	I can image Dag feels the way he does: If you're "other" DM's are vocal about their opinions you don't want the discussion; it's merely disrupting. On the other hand, it is your civilized responsibility to avoid incorrect assumptions. These assumptions can really hurt a player; for instance he might choose not to play an illusionist based on faulty assumptions that illusions aren't very useful. Perhaps you can make it clear that things will be different without being confronting, for example by packaging them within a setting. If you say you're playing in a different setting, and that this setting will share only the core rules with the other DM's settings, you might prepare them for this "new" experience without giving them false expectations. In any case, you definitely don't want unnecessary rules discussions - or even the feeling that the DM is being arbitrary - in the actual game, and that's why you don't want to surprise players with an unexpected interpretation in game.
Dag 07-12-07, 12:27 PM	As I say, there are numerous ways that the other campaigns I play in miss on some of the rules in the book. The use of the haste spell, flanking, holding in combat, spellcraft for identifying potions, the heal skill and plenty of others. My players get rather lengthy e-mails from me on information important to my campaign and I put LOTS of work into it. I'm not going to add to the work I do by correcting other DMs that these players might play with and I'm not going to browse through the rule book with my players before the campaign starts so I can point out each rule that other DMs may have had wrong. I rarely play in these other groups anyways (just when I have a night off I run a cohort) so I cant be sure where the rule differences have been spotted and corrected. Would just be a big waste of time for me to run through the rules of my game where they are the same as the rules in the book. Wow. That is kinda being a jerk. Regardless of whether the other groups are misinformed or not - you know that they expect things to work in certain ways - especially since you have never bothered to inform anyone that you felt differently about it and played under the same rules. You act like his "re-education" is so painful when in actuality, you could just email everyone this thread's location (or that Sean guy's site section) to show them how you are going to rule it. After all, how hard is it to provide a simple URL link in an email note? Hey, if I'm a jerk then so be it. I'm a jerk who runs a fine campaign and my players enjoy it. If someone from this other campaign asks to play I let him/her know that alot of the "rules" used in the other game are wrong and that I go by the book on them, but I dont sit there and go down the list. If asked I'll speak about whichever ones come to mind, starting with the haste spell which is used in most every battle incorrectly so it is most memorable (and I have brought it up during one of their games, but the next time I played it was still being used incorectly so I no longer bother correcting that DM). I do plan to e-mail the site that Tempest Stormwind posted earlier to the DM who is always getting the illusion vs. undead thing wrong, but I dont feel it is a responsibility to e-mail it to everyone who plays in one of my campaigns. The re-education is not "painful" as you say, it is just disruptive when it comes up during the run of play and I am a DM who does not interrupt game play unless it's for a good reason. If it were only one thing I certainly would have corrected him on it before the campaign, but as I say there are a slew of rules they have wrong so I hardly remember them all save for the most obvious until they come up during the game.
mvincent 07-12-07, 12:34 PM	From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060718a) (if desired): "Misconceptions about undead creatures abound. For example, undead creatures see and hear pretty much just like other sorts of creatures do. They aren't imbued with any sort of special sense that allows them to note unseen things or creatures. Exactly how an undead creature sees and hears isn't revealed in the rules, but then again there are lots of other things about undead creatures that the rules don't reveal, such as how they manage to move around."
PenderGrass 07-12-07, 01:50 PM	Hey, if I'm a jerk then so be it. I'm a jerk who runs a fine campaign and my players enjoy it. Just looking for feedback and hopefully some support for when I confront my handful of old-school gamers. Seems to me, from your first post to your last post that your refusal to simply clarify the situation means you are expecting, heck, maybe even welcoming this upcoming "confrontation" with players you know are coming into your game under an incorrect assumption. Maybe that is because you have a royal butt-kicking scenario in mind and you know that you can totally take advantage of the players' misconceptions of the actual rules of the game you are running, or maybe you are looking to rub some old-school gamers' faces in a commonly misconstrued rules nuance. Either way, since you claim the other campaigns are too fraught with incorrect rulings that it would take another PHB and DMG to clarify them all, I would hope that you are at the very least letting your players know that you plan on playing RAW in all instances other than your own listed house rules. That is the minimal courtesy I would expect from any DM. :dragon: ****
Dag 07-12-07, 03:15 PM	Seems to me, from your first post to your last post that your refusal to simply clarify the situation means you are expecting, heck, maybe even welcoming this upcoming "confrontation" with players you know are coming into your game under an incorrect assumption. Maybe that is because you have a royal butt-kicking scenario in mind and you know that you can totally take advantage of the players' misconceptions of the actual rules of the game you are running, or maybe you are looking to rub some old-school gamers' faces in a commonly misconstrued rules nuance. Either way, since you claim the other campaigns are too fraught with incorrect rulings that it would take another PHB and DMG to clarify them all, I would hope that you are at the very least letting your players know that you plan on playing RAW in all instances other than your own listed house rules. That is the minimal courtesy I would expect from any DM. What situation am I supposed to clarify? In the campaign I run the illusion vs. undead dilemma has been resolved. The one player who was misinformed on the rules now understands the rule and this was not achieved in a confrontational manner. The other rules of my game are by the books, and changes are clarified. The one player (not an old-schooler) who hopped from the other campaign to mine was not operating under an 'incorrect assumption' he was operating under numerous incorrect assumptions. I told him that the old game had a lot of rules that were being incorrectly used based on how they are written in the books and that I go by the book in these matters. He was fine with that and is very much enjoying my current campaign. No confrontations no disrespect. Im not sure how you're reading all of that into this - suppose I was to vague before because I did not feel the need to go through the trouble of writing lengthy paragraphs to explain the subtleties of the situation. Ah yes, the royal butt-kicking I am masterminding. Not sure how some lack of knowledge concerning illusions and undead will help with this butt-kicking though, maybe you're under the assumption that I am asking my players to play undead characters and I plan to ambush them with invisible armies behind illusory walls who they assume they would have been able to see... As for the old-schoolers I am one myself and the majority of my players are as well. My players know the rules concerning the undead and illusions and most of the other rules, it is the couple of old-schoolers in the other campaign who do not. If I were looking to rub their faces in the information I would e-mail them a link to this thread which vastly shows that I am right and they are wrong. I'm not a face-rubbing or confrontational kind of person (probably why I have not tried to argue these rules nuances at their table with them). I'm sure I'll bring it up away from the game one of these days, but not in a way that will call the old-school DM out in front of the newer gamers he plays with. A pity that you rushed to judgement on me and that you brought nothing constructive to this thread. Your last paragraph I've already addressed.
PenderGrass 07-12-07, 03:34 PM	Im not sure how you're reading all of that into this... Your first post reads: "Just looking for feedback and hopefully some support for when I confront my handful of old-school gamers." The word confront indicates a situation that you are expecting to become confrontational. It is a simple choice of words that you placed into your askance for help. If you bothered to change the word to something that indicates less of an antagonistic type of situation, you might avoid people misreading what you are trying to say. I would suggest replacing "confront" with something along the lines of "discuss" or whatever. A pity that you rushed to judgement on me and that you brought nothing constructive to this thread. Maybe so, but at least you now may realize the word "confront" has certain ideas that it expresses. Take it or leave it, as you wish. :dragon: ****
High Octane 07-12-07, 03:50 PM	Hello ladies and gentleman. I would appreciate some help and feedback. This concerns the people I play with, most of them being of the old-school variety (like myself) who feel that any and all spells from the illusion school are worthless vs. Undead. Mainly this has come up when I am playing in one fo their games. A wizard might go invisible but still get swarmed with wraiths because the DM tells the player illusions dont work vs. Undead. I've kept quiet mainly because the group we play in is huge. Too many people to even roleplay, let alone get into rules debates. When I DM, however, one of the newer players who was mentored into D&D by one of these old-schoolers tried telling me the same thing about illusions and undead and I cut him off pretty quickly, telling him to worry about his own character (a fighter). Now, am I wrong here? According to the Monster manual undead are "immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)." So thusly they would be fooled by non-pattern or non-phantasmal illusions. Right? Invisibility, major image, hallucinatory terrain, disguise self, and most other illusion spells are going to affect undead the same way they fool a human, correct? Just looking for feedback and hopefully some support for when I confront my handful of old-school gamers. For the love of.... They aren't a mind affecting ability, they are a glamer! If a video camera existed in those times they would record the same thing as a human sees! They are essentially light bending and holograms and occasionally force fields! If they are mind affecting abilities they say so. My friends have this same issue, I swear I want to strangle them. Their logic is "Oh why would they have hide from undead if invisibility worked on undead?" Answer: Because its a 1st level cleric spell instead of a 2nd level wizard/sorcerer spell?