Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Llathos 09-02-04, 10:07 AM	So, what's the limitation? I'm DMing for the first time with a PC in the party very interested in illusions. Some of the ways he wants to use them cause me to hesitate. For instance, in a recent battle he cast silent image to create the image of a spiked pit in front of the party to deter a pack of orc-dire boar riders charging down on them. The attackers saw the pit, but of course chose not to interact with it thereby allowing them no save against it. I found it to be a smart usage of the spell and let it be done. Now, though, he wants to use silent image to create a fog over an area to hide the party. Since it's away from the defenders, they don't get to interact with it to disbelieve it. No save, and suddenly this level 1 spell is becoming quite powerful. Do you consider LOOKING at the image conjured by a silent image as "interacting" with it? I love that the player is using his head with the spell, and I don't want to discourage that. However, I don't want him also using the spell to simulate things he shouldn't be able to and thereby devaluing future illusion spells...
Llathos 09-02-04, 11:25 AM	Bump for visibility. ...Since the boards got organized...they seem to have slowed down...
FunkyTrip 09-02-04, 11:31 AM	I think merely looking at a silent image is interacting with it. The riders may spot little flaws, such as a poll of grass sticking out of the middle of the hole or a slight distortion. Same with fog. Fog feels damp. Anyone in an illusionary fog would be allowed a save. Just as looking at it from afar... it might look strangely distorted for some reason.
Llathos 09-02-04, 11:43 AM	That's the core of what I was getting at. However, from the SRD: Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. So in the case where something doesn't seem right... the person would study it carefully, thus getting a saving throw. If the illusion is believable enough (judgement call on the part of the DM) that they wouldn't get that same saving throw.
amoeba 09-02-04, 11:50 AM	According to the rules, just looking at an illusion does not constitute interaction. So no, you would not get a save in either case by just looking at the pit or looking at the fog. Since your enemies are what I presume to be dumb orcs, then I would agree with the lack of a will save ruling for the spiked pit case. For the fog case. I would consider shooting an arrow in to the illusionary fog to be interaction. Thus if the orcs had bows and did that, I would allow a will save. The PCs would still get a miss chance for that first shot though. What you can do to limit the effectiveness of these low level illusions is to throw a single low level caster in to your bad guy group next time. Next time the party wizard/sorc casts an illusion, have the badguy caster make a spellcraft check to recognize it as an illusion and call out a warning to his badguy buddies, thereby giving his badguy buddies a will save against the effect.
Llathos 09-02-04, 11:58 AM	Nice thinkin....:)
Bopple 09-02-04, 12:26 PM	Merely looking at illusions don't incur will save, generally. But fog confined to too restricted area, coming out of nowhere? That would certainly incur a save. And as for spiked pit, you'd better not allow it. There is Illusory Pit - a 4th level spell. (Savage Species) Its duration is longer, but its area is smaller than that of Silent Image.
amoeba 09-02-04, 12:37 PM	does the illusory pit spell from savage species deal damage if the enemy fails its save? I don't find making an illusion of a pit with silent image too unbalancing and I would encourage players to make smart decisions like that. I mean the orcs can always run around the pit right? I don't find the fog case that unbalancing either. I mean he could have always casted obscuring mist instead of silent image and summoned a real mist right? I wouldn't nerf his playing that much as he is playing his character well and with how illusions interact with spellcraft and how illusions become useless as soon as trueseeing come in to play, I would allow him to do most of these things. Besides, its not like hes killing your orcs/whatnot with these spells but merely buying his party time. In the spiked pit situation, would you rather he casted color spray or sleep and thus took out 75% of your orcs instead? Anyways, If you do feel some of his tactics a bit overpowered, you can use the suggestions I posted above, but don't go overboard as its very easy to make an illusionist useless.
tarkin 09-02-04, 01:17 PM	Try this one: Silent Image of a Prismatic Wall.
Bopple 09-02-04, 01:53 PM	Illusory Pit does no damage. I was thinking of weird case of too small foggy area. But as you said, there is possibility of Obscuring Mist. Thus I admit it's just weird and it'd cause suspicion only.
Kiri Sittori 09-02-04, 02:35 PM	Try this one: Silent Image of a Prismatic Wall. Ignorance is bliss, though; the orcs might be a bit confused about the Rainbow Wall that just popped up right there, they sure as keck aren't gonna fear the Ultimate Doom Effects associated with that particular *L8* spell. Why? They have no reason to, given their experience. It's like an example of illusory critters in 2e. Rath the Dwarf sees an illusion basilisk. If he's ever actually seen one before, he'd probably freak out, thinking he might get petrified (and, indeed, the fear might shut his body down!) But if Rath didn't know what a basilisk was, or what it could do, it's just a really funky-looking lizard to him.
Undercover_Dragon 09-03-04, 05:46 PM	From 3.5 SRD Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like. Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. A figment cannot make the illusion of a spiked pit, because it would be making the solid ground seem to be empty space, however the illusion of fog would work. Instead of a spiked pit the player could make spikes grow from the ground to break the enemy lines. I dont think that the illusion is too powerful because the duration is concentration so as long as the illusion is up the mage cant do anything else. Also if the players just stay in the fog and shoot at the orcs the orcs can take cover, run away or even charge the fog (which would allow a save). As a general rule for the figment spells my DM uses the line, you can make something out of nothing but you cant make nothing out of something. And remember that its a silent image so the creatures interacting with the spell would, probably, get a bonus on the save if the interaction was suppose to create sound but didnt. Overall the silent image spell is great for tactical advantage, but it can be countered by having a creature with spellcraft in the opposition. The creature with spellcraft could make a check vs. DC 20 + Spell Level to determin what spell was cast (as described in the skills section) and then tell the rest of the group, allowing them a save with a bonus. And if needed you can always use some of their tactics against them, like adding a lvl 1 orc sorcerer to the group to hide the orcs and set up for an ambush.