Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sirlarca 07-09-07, 02:35 AM	Recently, my mage asked me a question which I found difficult to answer : what happens when a mage makes a successfull spellcraft check when another mage casts an illusion spell (in our case, a phantasmal killer, but the question is general) ? Logically, she knows that an illusion has been cast so does she disbelieve it automatically ? Or should I give any bonus ? Thanks in advance for your help. Sirlarca.
tarkin 07-09-07, 10:42 AM	He gains the same benefit that he gets when his closest friend in the world shouts out "IT IS AN ILLUSION". A small circumstance bonus to his save. +4.. After he makes his save, IF he makes it, he can yell out to his buddies. This will usually be after they have made there saves, but it might help them on their next one. Part of the problem is that while you trust your spellcraft better than your best friend, your spellcraft does not tell you WHAT the illusion is, just that an illusion was cast sometime during this round. I.E. I create an illusion spell. During this round a wall of fire appears, two creatures appear out of nowhere, and two more allies of mine come around a corner. Which was the illusion?
Vegepygmy 07-09-07, 07:02 PM	Tarkin is assuming some things and drawing conclusions as to others. First, the relevant rules (PHB, pages 173-174): A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus. So first of all, does making your Spellcraft check to identify an illusion spell constitute "proof" that it is an illusion? Tarkin says no. I think yes. It's proof that should be sufficient for a reasonable person, and I don't think the rules require absolutely incontrovertible proof. Just as there could (in a magical universe) be explanations other than "it's an illusion" for why you just fell through the floor, it's possible that your knowledge of Spellcraft has misled you in some way, but a reasonable person would still rely on that knowledge. So my answer would be that if you are able to identify a particular spell effect as an illusion by making your Spellcraft check, you would need no saving throw to disbelieve the illusion, and you could provide your allies a +4 bonus on their saving throws by communicating that fact to them, whenever your DM allows such communications to be made. Now, Tarkin assumes that (1) there is more than one spell effect being created in a round, (2) the DM doesn't place any weight on the order of initiative as to those effects, and (3) there is no way to determine which spell effects are generated by whom. Let's assume that (1) is true, because (2) and (3) obviously aren't relevant if it isn't. While the DMG does recognize (page 24) that in the game world, combat events are actually occurring simultaneously, in actual play events occur in initiative order, and it is usually quite obvious that Wizard A, who just finished casting a spell an instant before the wall of fire appeared, is responsible for that spell effect, while Wizard B, who began casting a spell about six seconds ago, and completed it right after the wall of fire appeared, is more likely responsible for the two creatures who have just appeared out of nowhere. It can be quite difficult for a DM to try to enforce a no-metagaming policy as to knowledge like that, especially when things like different casting times (1 round for summon monster III, but 1 standard action for the major image creating an illusion that mimics summon monster III) can also provide clues. But perhaps most important is assumption (3). We know that casters need line of effect to their wall of fire and summon monster spells (which might also be a sufficient clue to determine who cast which spell), but the rules don't say whether or not it is obvious that the effect is "coming from" Wizard A or Wizard B. Some spells are explicitly obvious: a fireball shoots from the caster's finger. Many more are not. Suffice it to say that it may be difficult or impossible to determine the origin of some illusions, but certainly not all. As to the specific case of phantasmal killer: my ruling as DM would be that a target who successfully identifies the spell knows that the most horrible beast he can imagine is about to appear to him, but it is merely an illusion, and visible only to him. That knowledge (especially combined with the corroborating evidence that his companions, if any, are not reacting in any way to the "beast") constitutes sufficient proof that when the beast appears, he automatically makes his Will save to disbelieve (regardless of the fact that he cannot be 100% certain the "beast" is a product of the phantasmal killer spell he is mostly-but-not-absolutely certain his enemy just cast), rendering the spell completely ineffective.
Czem_15 07-09-07, 09:16 PM	making a successful spellcraft check lets you idetify a spell so whats the problem with knowing what the spell is or what it does?? and also if you didnt see the spell being cast (or heard) so you dont make spellcraft but when you see the illusion you automatically get a spellcraft check to identify a spell thats alredy in place or effect so what is the problem:D Spellcraft illusion's worst enemy???
nameneeded 07-09-07, 10:43 PM	What about Shadow Evoc? Same thing then right? I think it is unfair that a skill can unmask high level spells with a relativley low roll. I mean a spot check on that ranger across the way doesn't add to your AC or to Hit mods. Getting a high Diplomacy check doesn't raise the DC for Charm Person. A high Bluff success doesn't grant you a bonus to your Sense Motive and vice versa. Can I use Diplomacy to reverse the effects of a Dominate or Charm Spell? Myself I find the whole spellcraft check to "see" what is being cast is crud. Figure out spells based on effects/ aftermath deffinately but not before. It doesn't allow for the flavour of different casting methods for differing cultures. It assumes that in that sec or two of combat you saw the entire spell being cast and figured it out when you should be concentrating on you own stuff. etc etc And, though I am unsure on this, it isn't even hampered by feats like Still Spell and Silent Spell by Raw.
stoicfaux 07-09-07, 11:35 PM	Logically, she knows that an illusion has been cast so does she disbelieve it automatically ? Or should I give any bonus ? If she knows that the enemy mage cast 'charm person,' does she know who it was cast on? Same idea for illusions. Your PC may know it was an illusion spell, but it may or may not be obvious as to just what the illusion is. Which can be especially dangerous if the enemy mage casts a delayed spell in the previous round. Cast delayed fireball while out of sight. Cast illusion spell so PC can do spellcraft check. PC ignores the fireball because it's obviously an illusion. PC automatically fails save versus fireball. :D Or do something obnoxious like cast an illusion of henchmen arriving, except that real henchmen are actually arriving. The PC sees 8 henchmen arrive (4 of which are the illusion.) The PC knows an illusion was cast and tries to disbelieve or ignore the 8 henchmen...
Vegepygmy 07-10-07, 01:29 AM	And, though I am unsure on this, it isn't even hampered by feats like Still Spell and Silent Spell by Raw.It is, in fact. Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
tarkin 07-10-07, 10:17 AM	stoicfaux is correct. Spellcraft lets you know what spell is being cast, NOT what the spell is doing. That is why it is identical to having someone shout out "it is an illusion" You know an illusion was done, but not what the illusion was. P.S. Out of game, you'd have to be pretty silly to let a single skill check totally negate the usefuleness of an entire school of magic.
Vegepygmy 07-10-07, 12:25 PM	Out of game, you'd have to be pretty silly to let a single skill check totally negate the usefuleness of an entire school of magic.That overstates the effectiveness of Spellcraft by an order of magnitude or so. There are many spells in the school of Illusion that remain just as useful despite a successful Spellcraft check to identify them. Yeah, so you know your enemy just cast invisibility. So what? You still can't see him. Yeah, you identified the color spray. You're still unconscious. Don't worry, fellas, there aren't actually 5 of him; he just cast mirror image. You still have to choose which one of "him" you're attacking. The list goes on and on and on...
nameneeded 07-10-07, 01:47 PM	So I see the enemy mage casting Illusionary Wall, shout out a warning to the team and suddenly a wall appears but me and my team are unsure of what he cast? Yea right. Maybe a slight of hand roll can mask the somatic part?
Czem_15 07-10-07, 05:34 PM	I think the automatic spell save should only apply phantasm illusions you cant get killed by something you know isnt real. shadow and glamer illusions like invisibility it dosnt matter if you know what spell was cast it makes a real effect. pattern and figments illusions you make a will save at +4(beacause you know it is a illusion) if you fail the save is up to the player character to ignore the thing he thinks is an illusion like trying to walk trough a wall or study something to get a spellcraft check to know if it is a spell on effect. do you think that it would be something like this???
Black_Scorpion 07-11-07, 01:59 AM	What about Shadow Evoc? Same thing then right? I think it is unfair that a skill can unmask high level spells with a relativley low roll. I mean a spot check on that ranger across the way doesn't add to your AC or to Hit mods. Getting a high Diplomacy check doesn't raise the DC for Charm Person. A high Bluff success doesn't grant you a bonus to your Sense Motive and vice versa. Can I use Diplomacy to reverse the effects of a Dominate or Charm Spell? Myself I find the whole spellcraft check to "see" what is being cast is crud. Figure out spells based on effects/ aftermath deffinately but not before. It doesn't allow for the flavour of different casting methods for differing cultures. It assumes that in that sec or two of combat you saw the entire spell being cast and figured it out when you should be concentrating on you own stuff. etc etc And, though I am unsure on this, it isn't even hampered by feats like Still Spell and Silent Spell by Raw. I think that it would really doesn't matter whether the characters come from different races or not. The definition of the arcane writings in the PH is that the arcane language is something that wizard's discover so in effect, it would be the same for all cultures. In essence, the purpose of the spellcraft check is to see whether it is a spell and whatever spell it is. In cases of illusions, you know that it is an illusion but your sensors still say otherwise, there would still be something that you see or hear or feel, you just don't believe it. If, as the earlier post suggests, that what you disbelieve is not the actual illusion, then you are in for a surprise - you don't dodge it and can therefore be killed. Also, the +4 to saving throw of most illusions is just an added chance that you would not believe that the illusion is there. Somebody can say that the charging bull is not real but you would still need to believe that in order for you not to be afraid to be hurt by it. If a character that you don't particularly trust tell you that it is an illusion, I would not normally give the +4 circumstance bonus since you may or may not believe him. To end, the spellcraft check is only useful to know the spell, an instinct perhaps like a rogue's evasion, or reflex, a monk's Wisdom to AC, all are the effects of training. Skill Ranks represent training in much the same way as experience and level does so why not apply the same thing to magic as you do to melee. This doesn't mean that the illusion fails, just that it is known that an illusion has been cast. Arcane magic comes from something more ancient than the spellcasters so it should be similar across races and customs. Which is also the reason why there are similar components are applicable for all, excluding the effects of metamagic feats. As to the proof, the spellcasters would know that a particular illusion is cast, now the players decide what to disbelief.
Kursk 07-11-07, 11:46 AM	So my answer would be that if you are able to identify a particular spell effect as an illusion by making your Spellcraft check, you would need no saving throw to disbelieve the illusion,... I thought it was a check to see what spell is being cast, not a spell effect is.
Vegepygmy 07-11-07, 03:29 PM	I thought it was a check to see what spell is being cast, not a spell effect is.The check tells you what spell is being cast. Tarkin and others have correctly pointed out that that doesn't necessarily mean the particular spell effect you are perceiving is a result of the spell you just identified. So what I'm saying is that if the spell effect is such that you can "put 2 and 2 together" and be reasonably certain that it is the result of the illusion spell you just identified via Spellcraft, you would not need to make a saving throw to disbelieve the illusion. If the circumstances are such that you can't be reasonably certain the spell effect you're perceiving is a result of the illusion spell you know was just cast, then I would say you have no "proof" that the spell effect is an illusion and you'd have to make a saving throw to disbelieve it just like anyone else.
BW0222 07-11-07, 03:50 PM	Folks, I rule as follows... The person who can see/hear the spell being cast can make a spellcraft check. If she identifies the spell and she can react based on that knowledge. She can call out and give others the +4 bonus. However, the disbelief only happens when she (or another) interacts with it. Ignoring it might be equally effective. I always assume that if the effect is initially visible, then the character can figure that it is the illusion. If the illusion was cast in such a way that it was not visible at the time of casting or lots of other spells were cast, then I leave it up to the player to guess which might be the illusion -- again, disbelief only occuring when she (or another) interacts with it. Examples. #1 - PC makes a spellcraft check and knows that an enemy wizard is casting silent image at the same time a 10' square of stone appears in front of the doorway. PC knows that the spell was cast and can make the assumption that the doorway is covered by an illusion. She can react in anyway she sees fit. She doesn't have to waste an action pounding on the 'stone' to open the door. She could yell, "That's an illusion." others could make a +4 save to open the door without having to try bashing the stone down. #2 - Same thing, but the wizard makes an illusion of a wolf behind some boxes. The PC can say "Illusion" but can't point to anything specific. Later, the PCs move up and notices the wolf behind the box. Now, the PC can guess and say, illusion, but until someone interacts with it, they won't know what the illusion is. If she points to the wolf and says "Illusion", then they get a +4 will save when the interact with it -- if it was an illusion. (Good guess) Of course the wolf might be real and the illusion of a rock covering say a small chest. In which case, a PC trying to walk through the wolf gets a will save (which always fails) and is possibly bitten.
Kursk 07-11-07, 03:50 PM	The check tells you what spell is being cast. Tarkin and others have correctly pointed out that that doesn't necessarily mean the particular spell effect you are perceiving is a result of the spell you just identified. So what I'm saying is that if the spell effect is such that you can "put 2 and 2 together" and be reasonably certain that it is the result of the illusion spell you just identified via Spellcraft, you would not need to make a saving throw to disbelieve the illusion. If the circumstances are such that you can't be reasonably certain the spell effect you're perceiving is a result of the illusion spell you know was just cast, then I would say you have no "proof" that the spell effect is an illusion and you'd have to make a saving throw to disbelieve it just like anyone else. I agree.
arjomanes 07-12-07, 05:16 PM	The check tells you what spell is being cast. Tarkin and others have correctly pointed out that that doesn't necessarily mean the particular spell effect you are perceiving is a result of the spell you just identified. So what I'm saying is that if the spell effect is such that you can "put 2 and 2 together" and be reasonably certain that it is the result of the illusion spell you just identified via Spellcraft, you would not need to make a saving throw to disbelieve the illusion. If the circumstances are such that you can't be reasonably certain the spell effect you're perceiving is a result of the illusion spell you know was just cast, then I would say you have no "proof" that the spell effect is an illusion and you'd have to make a saving throw to disbelieve it just like anyone else. I don't know if being reasonably certain counts as proof. I'd say in the instance of identifying an illusion spell without the added complexity of other spells being cast, then you would have adequate proof. One illusion spell is cast. One spell effect is returned. That's as close as you can get to proof in a magical environment. However, if you identify an illusion spell, but multiple spell effects appear, then you don't have proof. Even if you think that you identified the illusion, that can grant you the +4 to your save, but I think you'd still be required to make a save.
Daeva 07-12-07, 09:32 PM	even if you rule this, how many quickend low level spells from a wizard rouge being ignored for auto sneak attack would it take for you to stop choosing to ignore the effects? same goes for any quickend area effects spells cast right after an illusion you see with spell craft. this would not be GM cheese either to do it a lot, because all mages will know about the trick, on the other hand it would be player cheese to convince the gm that after ages and ages of magic this "trick" wasnt taught does making a spell craft check count as intereacting with the illusion? i dont think so. and this circles back to if all mages know this trick, it would be common wizards utilize it, and common knowledge they do utilize it, therefore making a spellcraft check and knowing they just cast an illusion is no longer proof that the thing coming towards you is not going to hurt you, therefore you dont automatically disbelive. nothing has ever kept you from telling the gm ok i know he cast an illusion, i will just ignore the wall of fire/monsters they summon etc. your trying to turn what is and has bene a character choice "i choose to ignore, and tell my friends its an illusion" (how happy do you think the barbarian is going to be to find out that wall of fire you siad was fake isnt!!) into a game mechanic in your advantage. however if a player said that hes ignoring the spell the guy just cast, and he quickend a spell after, id totally count him as flat footed, hes so sure its fake that hes unaware of the attack.
Shadowed1 07-13-07, 02:44 AM	A couple of thoughts..... Chains of disbelief and Shadowcrafter/Shadowcraft Mage Sure you ID'd the spell but as you chose to ignore it and alert your companions (which in this case wouldn't help) the shadow infused illusion goes to work scoring REAL damage on you. Oh well, you can still revel in the fact that you ID'd the spell. :evillaugh
tarkin 07-13-07, 10:36 AM	I would definitely allow a player to ignore something that he thinks is an illusion. However, as a DM I don't say: X casts a spell. A wall of fire appears. If your DM plays it correctly, chances are the player will have NO idea what the illusion was. It takes a really stupid illusionist to make an illusiont that is easily identifiable when facing other casters. Things that most players don't understand about illusions. 1. They can include arrival of the objects, including associated random extra bits to make it realisitc. I.E. You can have a creature FLY in, run around the corner, appear to Gate in, pop out of the dirt, leaving a realistic looking hole that caves in, etc. etc. 2. They do NOT have to 'begin' immediately after you finish casting. You can cast the spell then spend your round concentrating - with NOTHING happening until say your buddy who is also a spell caster goes. 3. They don't have to be of something physical. I.E. an image of a Ghost of a slain comarade/enemey can be very effective.
Mirtek 07-13-07, 12:54 PM	P.S. Out of game, you'd have to be pretty silly to let a single skill check totally negate the usefuleness of an entire school of magic. The epic rules actually do just that. Once you're able to beat a certain epic spot DC you automatically see through all illusions, the poor wizard can do nothing against it, not even if he's epic himself. Very bad rule.
Metafictional 07-13-07, 02:03 PM	Still, let's assume you've readied an action to counterspell. Enemy Caster X casts Phantasmal Whatever. You can attempt to counterspell it by using your own Phantasmal Whatever...wait a minute. Now you obviously have the spell. You know what it does. Regardless of what the effect is, you KNOW it's parameters and that it's an illusion. So is that worth a +4 save, or immunity to the effect based on your expert knowledge? Is it worth countering the spell at that point? These are the questions that need to be considered. This goes back to my big problem with illusion spells in the first place. Why on earth would you throw an illusory fireball, or make an illusionary wall of stone appear, if, with the same class, with a different spell, you could make REAL fireballs and REAL walls of stone appear? Why bother with all this fake magic, most of which, half the creatures in the MM seem to be immune to anyways? This problem exists solely because illusions are "not real" and can be "disbelieved" (well some of them, at least).
Daeva 07-13-07, 05:04 PM	once again, this shouldnt be a mechanical thing but a player choice one. i spell craft, oh its illusion spell X hes casting, ok i choose to ignore the fireball coming at me, or i just try to run striaght thorugh that fake balor. know what happens? the exact same thing that would happen rather the fireball was real or not, same with the balor. after he runs through the balor, he now knows its not real, it turns outliney, if shoots past it to the wizard through and its unaffected he now has interacted with it save at +4. the only thing spell craft does is let you know what is being cast, not how the illusion is being manifested. knowing an illusion was cast, is not interacting with the illusion. illusions are not mind affecting (for the most part) and a lot of the things people think are immune to illusions arent, mindless undead and golems, you can turn a corner, cast an illusion to make the corner you just turned look bricked off two foot into the entrance, they will walk up, see the blocked path, that wasnt blocked just 45 seconds ago when he walked by, and wouldnt even bother interacting, or making a save, read all about illusions if you dont believe me.
KnH 07-14-07, 09:42 AM	Heres the thing- they may not even need to identify it while the spell is being cast. In the PHB, theres one use of spellcraft that could make illusions even worse against spellcasters. 4th from the bottom, you can: 25 + spell level - After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry. So, heres what could happen. Someone casts Phantasmal Killer. The spellcaster either didn't see it or rolled really bad on the identify check. They make a Will save to disbelieve it, and fail. Then it could go one of two ways: Immediately make the Fortitude save and either live or die. Immediately make a Spellcraft check, possibly identifying the spell as Phantasmal Killer. If its the second, what happens then? If they fail, then its a Fortitude save as normal. But, if they identify the spell as Phantasmal Killer, they know that the spell currently trying to kill them is Phantasmal Killer, and as such can't really hurt them. Do they automatically save against it? Do those with the Spellcraft skill get two saves against Phantasmal Killer? At about 10th level, its possibly easier to make the DC 30 spellcraft check than to make the possibly DC 27 or so Will save. By the way, this doesn't seem to apply to most illusions, since they aren't targeting you. But it does make me want to get as much Spellcraft as possible for all of my characters, since this means you definitely know when you have to make a Will save from, say, Scrying.
Daeva 07-14-07, 04:59 PM	i would assume the fortitude save would come first i cant think of an instance other than think like commical collision or a very specific readied action that can inturrupt someone mid action. nor a single instance where one cna take a reaction even in the middle of a instantanious spell effect (the save would be made in the middle) unless they stood there and specifically readied an action to disbelieve the first thing i detect as an illusion. i could be wrong, i stopped finding actual proof in books recently after deciding most people ignore my posts, or at least thier content.
KnH 07-15-07, 06:08 PM	By the way, I should have said- I'd say if theres only one possible effect and you see someone cast Major Image, then I'd say you automatically succeed. (as long as you aren't playing with things like the Skill Trick False Theurgy). But, if there are other spell effects going on, then you only get a +4 on the save. --------------------------------------- Okay, so maybe Phantasmal Killer is a bad example. But what about other Illusion spells? For example, the 4th level Sor/Wiz spell from Spell Compendium: Sensory Deprivation (page 82). Its a targeted spell with a Will negates save. If you fail the save, can you still make the Spellcraft check to identify it? And if so, you realise its an illusion. Can you then see through it? With something like that, it could become two saves against the spell. Any opinions? ------------------------------------- Yeah, I agree that it should be at least partially a player choice of ignoring some effects. However, its almost always a bad idea to just ignore what you think is an illusion. If you think the wall is an illusion for example, and you run straight at it. Ever seen someone run straight into a pane of glass? ------------------------------------- Another thought, triggered by your mention of golems and illusions- Shadow Conjuration. It has SR. How does it affect golems? First of all, I can't remember if they count as objects or not, so they may or may not automatically save against it. But then, whether they automatically save or not, can they walk straight through effects like Wall of Stone because of their spell immunity?
war_thog 08-26-07, 10:31 AM	Well knowledge of something is not always proof that it isnt real. Take tv. Theres your illusion. You see something scary on tv and you get scared. Playing DOOM the monster jumps out of the corner and leaps at you, you jump back in your chair. I know, you know, we all know that its just a tv, just a computer, the images are no more real than illusions in DnD. However you still react appropriately. Amazing. Saves and disbelief are reactionary things. You cant ready a disbelief. You cant consciouscly choose to believe that it isnt real. It looks real. You wouldnt get your auto proof till you had gone *i think its real* and walked through it. It would still look genuinely real and block vision etc until you had proved to yourself that your cognitive faculties were right and that it wasnt real. A major imaged wall of fire produces thermal effects. You spellcraft and know its fake. Now you walk up and it feels hot, how daring are you to take the chance that you didnt make a mistake? Maybe you failed and the DM decided to trick you. In movies the people all go Wow! a hologram and still wave throug it to prove it isnt real. Spellcraft is conscious knowledge, learning, diagnosis. It cant effect your natural reactions. Phantasms are an even better example, you pass or fail oyur save. Period. Only you see it. With sensory depravation........ you might know that a sorceror is casting sensory depravation at you but his power > your will save and your brain is blinded. You "know" it isnt real, but that doesnt make it block your sight, etc any less. Phantasmal killer is an even ebtter example using the above doom example. You know its fake. You still get scared. Unfortunately in this case it is lethal! Who knew! But yes to the point. I believe spellcraft would do jack vs phantasms. VS figments you could know its an illusion spell but it would still look genuinely real to you until you disbelived it *even if that involved ignoring it an dwalking right through* But there is a difference here. The illusory wall still blocks your sight until you disbelieve it proper.