"Interaction" and glamers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Interaction" and glamers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tukka
03-15-08, 04:33 PM What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers? The rules seem more geared towards the conditions under which you can disbelief figments (probing or studying an illusory floor, or talking with an entity that doesn't exist at all, except as an illusion). Since glamers simply alter an existing object's appearance, I can imagine that it would be a little more difficult to notice something out of place with them, but I don't see anything in the official rules that says that.

Let's say a group of four PCs come upon an elderly human who is disguised (via disguise self) as a young elf. Lidda engages the NPC in conversation, Jozan's player says he's scoping the room for suspicious activity, Mialee's player doesn't specify any particular action (but is standing next to Lidda) while Redgar's player says that he's going to be intently watching the NPC for signs of funny business.

Who gets will saves in this case to disbelieve the illusion? And assuming everyone fails their save, at what intervals or under what conditions would they be allowed additional saves?

Also, what changes, if anything, if the NPC is using a hat of disguise instead of the spell to produce the illusion, and what would be the save DC? I am thinking it would be 11, though that would make them very unreliable in any situation where more than even a single commoner would be interacting with or scrutinizing you (depending on what, exactly, "interaction" entails).

Finally, take the above hypothetical scenario and replace the hat/spell with glamered armor. The human isn't trying to disguise their race or age, but is wearing padded armor glamered to look like half-plate. Who gets saves to notice the armor for what it truly is in that situation (if anyone)?

Thanks.
tyrecian
03-15-08, 05:05 PM my rule of thumb for any "interaction" to count, it would have to be physical. For instance, if a rogue were searching for traps near an illusory wall, i would allow them to save v/s the wall, assuming they would be touching it.

Therefore, i would continue to allow spot checks until someone manhandled that person disguised, and then allow a save v/s the illusion.

Yes the save would be very low, I assume that is why Veil and other variants that improve exist, so that there is a reasonable chance that your party disguised to look like visiting mind-flayer sorcerers from Tralgath 7 are really what you say you are under scrutiny from Drow guards that are supposed to be looking for any illusions...

makes a case for searching by hand, rather than looking at them to see.
mvincent
03-15-08, 05:42 PM What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers?Look here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a) for a Rules of the Game article about interaction.
Tukka
03-15-08, 06:56 PM Thanks, for the replies, both of you.

I did read that Rules of the Game article, and for me it still left me feeling like some questions were unanswered, because it focused mainly on figments, rather than glamers. It says:

You have a valid claim to an interaction with an illusion when you attack it, touch it, talk to it, poke it with a stick, target it with a spell, or do something else that one might do with a real creature or object.
The problem with applying this to a glamer is that unlike a figment, you are dealing with a real creature or object. Does everything that counts as an "interaction" with the creature count as an "interaction" with the illusion? My intuition says no, but the rules (and this rules "clarification") seem unclear.

Say an NPC uses disguise self in such a way as to add only a minor feature (like displaying a facial scar, or a bald-headed person hiding a tattoo on their scalp). I don't think that merely talking to the person in this case really merits being called "interaction with the illusion." The illusion in the case of a fake scar is fairly passive; it is not going to have much of an impact on the PCs or vice versa.

However, if the PCs have an extended discussion with the NPC, the NPC is considered to be the subject of the PC's attention. If the PCs are scrutinizing the individual (particularly, if they are studying particular features of the person, such as trying to sense their motive by paying particular attention to their facial expressions) then maybe that should constitute "interaction."
Seeker95
03-16-08, 07:36 AM Say an NPC uses disguise self in such a way as to add only a minor feature (like displaying a facial scar, or a bald-headed person hiding a tattoo on their scalp). I don't think that merely talking to the person in this case really merits being called "interaction with the illusion." The illusion in the case of a fake scar is fairly passive; it is not going to have much of an impact on the PCs or vice versa.A fake scar is anything but passive. It is the first thing you are likely to notice when you begin talking with someone. Similar to an eyebrow piercing, nose ring, or facial tattoo, a scar screams at the observer "look at me look only at me!" Such scrutiny begs for the interaction-triggered saving throw.

While a PC may be quite likely to make such a saving throw, common folk and monsters tend not to have anything in the bonus column on will saves. Illusions fool the masses most of the time. But against those whose career is spent in adventure, such efforts at disguise are less successful.
jaelis
03-16-08, 11:37 AM In the case of disguise self, I would say that anyone spending an action to interact with you specifically-- conversing with you, studying you, or attacking you-- would get a will save. In your example, I would give Redgar and Lidda a save, and maybe Mialee if her character is normally portrayed as attentive.

Similarly, walking by a guard in the street would not trigger a save, but trying to get through a checkpoint would.

Don't forget you can also use the spell is in conjunction with the disguise skill. Sometimes that will be better, depending on the spot checks vs the will saves of the people you're trying to fool. (Though I'm not really 100% sure how that is supposed to work.)
groveborn
03-16-08, 11:16 PM Talking with, touching, attacking, studying for at least one round, riding (huh?), or otherwise messing with something.

I don't know if BEING attacked by it would count if it does damage of some sort. If it didn't do any damage, I'd say you'd definitely get a saving throw to disbelieve it.
Damned slayer
03-17-08, 01:13 PM Isn't disguise self no save and +10 disguise bonus???
Tukka
03-17-08, 06:29 PM Isn't disguise self no save and +10 disguise bonus???
Huh. That would work, though it seems odd that you would not get any chance whatsoever to save against an illusion, it also was not quite sitting right with me that using disguise self could actually blow your cover since it gives people an extra checks to notice your deception in many of the cases where a disguise would actually be useful, and it makes a hat of disguise and glamered armor more viable/useful items.

The spell description doesn't say anything about it offering or not offering a saving throw, so the best interpretation (IMO, anyway) would be to presume it offers no save whatsoever.

Edit: Er, wait. The spell description does say that a will save is allowed for a creature that "interacts" with it, just not in the spell info block where save information is usually presented. I still don't really like the interpretation that just looking at and talking with someone entitles you to a save vs. their disguise self spell, or hat of disguise, for the reasons already mentioned.

Another edit: Maybe the peculiarity in the way the save info is presented in the disguise self spell suggests that some higher level, or specific kind of "interaction" is required to allow the save? Unfortunately, I know of nothing in the RAW which supports that interpretation.

Also, I just noticed that in the description of the glamered armor property, it says explicitly that only true seeing can see past the illusion, though it seems kind of odd to me that glamered armor would appreciate that benefit, while hats of disguise and disguise self offer relatively many opportunities to be disbelieved.
JamesMaissen
03-19-08, 01:21 AM What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers?

When I judge it is any of the following:

1> Attacking/Targetting
2> Being Attacked/Targetted
3> Active Spot check
4> Physical contact

-James

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tukka 03-15-08, 04:33 PM	What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers? The rules seem more geared towards the conditions under which you can disbelief figments (probing or studying an illusory floor, or talking with an entity that doesn't exist at all, except as an illusion). Since glamers simply alter an existing object's appearance, I can imagine that it would be a little more difficult to notice something out of place with them, but I don't see anything in the official rules that says that. Let's say a group of four PCs come upon an elderly human who is disguised (via disguise self) as a young elf. Lidda engages the NPC in conversation, Jozan's player says he's scoping the room for suspicious activity, Mialee's player doesn't specify any particular action (but is standing next to Lidda) while Redgar's player says that he's going to be intently watching the NPC for signs of funny business. Who gets will saves in this case to disbelieve the illusion? And assuming everyone fails their save, at what intervals or under what conditions would they be allowed additional saves? Also, what changes, if anything, if the NPC is using a hat of disguise instead of the spell to produce the illusion, and what would be the save DC? I am thinking it would be 11, though that would make them very unreliable in any situation where more than even a single commoner would be interacting with or scrutinizing you (depending on what, exactly, "interaction" entails). Finally, take the above hypothetical scenario and replace the hat/spell with glamered armor. The human isn't trying to disguise their race or age, but is wearing padded armor glamered to look like half-plate. Who gets saves to notice the armor for what it truly is in that situation (if anyone)? Thanks.
tyrecian 03-15-08, 05:05 PM	my rule of thumb for any "interaction" to count, it would have to be physical. For instance, if a rogue were searching for traps near an illusory wall, i would allow them to save v/s the wall, assuming they would be touching it. Therefore, i would continue to allow spot checks until someone manhandled that person disguised, and then allow a save v/s the illusion. Yes the save would be very low, I assume that is why Veil and other variants that improve exist, so that there is a reasonable chance that your party disguised to look like visiting mind-flayer sorcerers from Tralgath 7 are really what you say you are under scrutiny from Drow guards that are supposed to be looking for any illusions... makes a case for searching by hand, rather than looking at them to see.
mvincent 03-15-08, 05:42 PM	What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers?Look here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060221a) for a Rules of the Game article about interaction.
Tukka 03-15-08, 06:56 PM	Thanks, for the replies, both of you. I did read that Rules of the Game article, and for me it still left me feeling like some questions were unanswered, because it focused mainly on figments, rather than glamers. It says: You have a valid claim to an interaction with an illusion when you attack it, touch it, talk to it, poke it with a stick, target it with a spell, or do something else that one might do with a real creature or object. The problem with applying this to a glamer is that unlike a figment, you are dealing with a real creature or object. Does everything that counts as an "interaction" with the creature count as an "interaction" with the illusion? My intuition says no, but the rules (and this rules "clarification") seem unclear. Say an NPC uses disguise self in such a way as to add only a minor feature (like displaying a facial scar, or a bald-headed person hiding a tattoo on their scalp). I don't think that merely talking to the person in this case really merits being called "interaction with the illusion." The illusion in the case of a fake scar is fairly passive; it is not going to have much of an impact on the PCs or vice versa. However, if the PCs have an extended discussion with the NPC, the NPC is considered to be the subject of the PC's attention. If the PCs are scrutinizing the individual (particularly, if they are studying particular features of the person, such as trying to sense their motive by paying particular attention to their facial expressions) then maybe that should constitute "interaction."
Seeker95 03-16-08, 07:36 AM	Say an NPC uses disguise self in such a way as to add only a minor feature (like displaying a facial scar, or a bald-headed person hiding a tattoo on their scalp). I don't think that merely talking to the person in this case really merits being called "interaction with the illusion." The illusion in the case of a fake scar is fairly passive; it is not going to have much of an impact on the PCs or vice versa.A fake scar is anything but passive. It is the first thing you are likely to notice when you begin talking with someone. Similar to an eyebrow piercing, nose ring, or facial tattoo, a scar screams at the observer "look at me look only at me!" Such scrutiny begs for the interaction-triggered saving throw. While a PC may be quite likely to make such a saving throw, common folk and monsters tend not to have anything in the bonus column on will saves. Illusions fool the masses most of the time. But against those whose career is spent in adventure, such efforts at disguise are less successful.
jaelis 03-16-08, 11:37 AM	In the case of disguise self, I would say that anyone spending an action to interact with you specifically-- conversing with you, studying you, or attacking you-- would get a will save. In your example, I would give Redgar and Lidda a save, and maybe Mialee if her character is normally portrayed as attentive. Similarly, walking by a guard in the street would not trigger a save, but trying to get through a checkpoint would. Don't forget you can also use the spell is in conjunction with the disguise skill. Sometimes that will be better, depending on the spot checks vs the will saves of the people you're trying to fool. (Though I'm not really 100% sure how that is supposed to work.)
groveborn 03-16-08, 11:16 PM	Talking with, touching, attacking, studying for at least one round, riding (huh?), or otherwise messing with something. I don't know if BEING attacked by it would count if it does damage of some sort. If it didn't do any damage, I'd say you'd definitely get a saving throw to disbelieve it.
Damned slayer 03-17-08, 01:13 PM	Isn't disguise self no save and +10 disguise bonus???
Tukka 03-17-08, 06:29 PM	Isn't disguise self no save and +10 disguise bonus??? Huh. That would work, though it seems odd that you would not get any chance whatsoever to save against an illusion, it also was not quite sitting right with me that using disguise self could actually blow your cover since it gives people an extra checks to notice your deception in many of the cases where a disguise would actually be useful, and it makes a hat of disguise and glamered armor more viable/useful items. The spell description doesn't say anything about it offering or not offering a saving throw, so the best interpretation (IMO, anyway) would be to presume it offers no save whatsoever. Edit: Er, wait. The spell description does say that a will save is allowed for a creature that "interacts" with it, just not in the spell info block where save information is usually presented. I still don't really like the interpretation that just looking at and talking with someone entitles you to a save vs. their disguise self spell, or hat of disguise, for the reasons already mentioned. Another edit: Maybe the peculiarity in the way the save info is presented in the disguise self spell suggests that some higher level, or specific kind of "interaction" is required to allow the save? Unfortunately, I know of nothing in the RAW which supports that interpretation. Also, I just noticed that in the description of the glamered armor property, it says explicitly that only true seeing can see past the illusion, though it seems kind of odd to me that glamered armor would appreciate that benefit, while hats of disguise and disguise self offer relatively many opportunities to be disbelieved.
JamesMaissen 03-19-08, 01:21 AM	What, exactly, constitutes "interaction" when you're dealing with glamers? When I judge it is any of the following: 1> Attacking/Targetting 2> Being Attacked/Targetted 3> Active Spot check 4> Physical contact -James