|
Post by Scott on Aug 16, 2009 12:05:02 GMT -5
Not your typical illusion discussion. I'm pretty happy with how I run them. But just wanted to throw around some specific situations for opinions. The different illusion spells have built in limitations that help adjudicate what would be acceptable, and what might raise some suspicions. Phantasmal Force, for example, is a purely visual illusion, no sound, thermal components, or smell. If a phantasmal force wall of fire were encountered, I would try to describe it in a way that would convey clues, but not give it away. What about a magic missile? Do you think an illusionary magic missile would offer any clues to its nature?
|
|
|
Post by amalric on Aug 16, 2009 14:26:33 GMT -5
A magic missile illusion is kinda tricky - I suppose you could say that a magic missile normally flies through the air with a sound akin to a firework, say, so that would be one clue. Otherwise there really isn't much to go on. An illusionary fireball or lightning bolt would be far more likely to grab everyone's attention, and sound/thermal effects (or lack thereof) be a fair indicator, much like your wall of fire example - only you really don't have much time to figure things out with such attack spells...
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 16, 2009 16:44:02 GMT -5
Purely the DM's call since the description of Magic Missile is pretty vague... Is it normally soundless and lacking in heat or smell in your games, or not?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 16, 2009 17:09:48 GMT -5
Well, I think that Gary once stated that Magic Missiles were not "fiery"; they were simply an impact attack force, rather like an arrow of force (in "Saga of Old City", Gary describes the cataboligne's magic missiles as "ugly blue darts" that cause Chert to reel backward when they strike him). Therefore, very little to go on! A mage, however, witnessing the casting might think: "Hmmm... that's not like any casting of magic missiles I've ever seen!" and therefore be tipped off! ^__^
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 16, 2009 19:45:15 GMT -5
Well, would you say that there are certain illusions that wouldn't be detectable as such? A magic missile, for example?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 17, 2009 0:17:17 GMT -5
Well, there might be some clue for virtually any illusion being detected as fake--if the viewer is smart enough &/or observant enough to catch it! The DM would have to think about the odds of such. One thing that would ruin any such glamour would be an active "detect illusion" device or casting... such an item would clue the wielder in, and he could then warn any companions. Some illusions would certainly be more believable than others, though.
|
|
|
Post by Merkholz on Aug 17, 2009 2:02:47 GMT -5
Isn't that why creatures with 19+ intelligence are immune to illusions? They are so smart that they are assumed to pick up on the clues left by the weaker types of illusion. Going from there I'd might add solid clues to characters whose intelligence is in the range of 16-18, weaker clues to those with less intelligence. Then it's up to the player(s) to pick up the clues.
M
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 17, 2009 10:33:25 GMT -5
I'll paraphrase a recent post I made on DF. To me 1E is more about challanging the player than the character, so I don't like having a pre-set chance that an illusion may be detectable. I think it's up to the DM to provide those clues in the description, and it's up to the players to pick up on it. The example I used was: DM to players: “You peer around the corner. You see what appears to be a row of cell doors. There’s a guard walking the corridor, he’s twirling his keys, but you notice there is no sound. You instantly recognize it as an illusion”. That stinks. Or “You peer around the corner. You see what appears to be a row of cell doors. There’s a guard walking the corridor silently twirling his keys”. There’s an obvious clue there, as there should be if the caster devised such an obvious giveaway illusion, but it’s still up to the players to catch it and disbelieve it. The auto chance to detect smells of knowledge checks, gather information checks, etc. of 3E, which is more challange the character. So how would you describe an illusion that doesn't overstep the capabilities of the spell so that a PC might have a clue. Magic Missile for example.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 17, 2009 17:45:20 GMT -5
To my earlier example; if a m-u is present in the party group he might notice that the caster (we'll assume an illusionist, because a m-u would be unlikely to waste a third level phantasmal force to recreate a first level spell... ^__^) is not utilizing a standard complement of components ("Hey... I wonder what that casting is... I don't recognize those gestures!"), and then be highly surprised/suspicious to see magic missiles streak from the caster. For this, he might get a DM bonus--an actual unannounced saving throw, rolled by the DM. If no missiles actually strike him, this should raise some specter of actual doubt with the m-u. If it's a non-magic-user PC, then there would be more problems identifying it, unless the PC's had observed a m-u casting said spell enough times to note that something was awry. I was thinking that there was a good article or some-such in the early (pre-twenties) Polyhedrons dealing with this issue, but I'll have to dig them out and look. ^__^
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 18, 2009 7:08:10 GMT -5
I was recently rolling up an illusionist with a friend of mine. When he was rolling to know spells, he failed Phantasmal Force. I'm usually pretty by-the-book for knowing spells, but this struck me as a little odd. It's an illusionist that can't cast an illusion. I've been considering allowing the spell. Any thoughts?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 18, 2009 7:18:04 GMT -5
In most spell-rolling instances, I'm pretty hard, but I'd probably give in on this one, maybe at the expense of one of the other spells. In all of my years of DMing, I can only recollect one Illusionist PC being rolled up--a gnome, if I recall (although I think that somebody had a 1/2 elf thief-illusionist or something like that...). I originally had considered Illusionists a rather lame class, but the UA spells helped make them more of a force to be reckoned with. The high Dex and Int rquired vs a M-U and the magic items they could use as given in the PH hadn't helped my opinion of them any!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 18, 2009 9:32:55 GMT -5
While considering allowing Phantasmal Force to be an auto learn for illusionists, I got a pouty 'I'm killing this character' from the player. Now that really brings out the obstinate streak in me. I'll keep it by the book.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 18, 2009 12:38:18 GMT -5
Heh! Yeppers!! I found that the Phantasmal Force article in Polyhedron is in issue #6--I have 1 - 5 and 7 - 10, but I'm still missing that issue from the "accidental purge" my Dad performed on my box of AD&D stuff. I'm sure that somebody on this board has that issue, though... Bueller? Bueller?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 18, 2009 12:40:58 GMT -5
I can check. What else was in it, do you recall?
|
|
|
Post by amalric on Aug 18, 2009 16:07:08 GMT -5
I originally had considered Illusionists a rather lame class, but the UA spells helped make them more of a force to be reckoned with. The high Dex and Int rquired vs a M-U and the magic items they could use as given in the PH hadn't helped my opinion of them any! Ditto!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 18, 2009 16:09:53 GMT -5
I haven't ever had a competent player play an illusionist, so it's hard to say.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Aug 23, 2009 17:08:11 GMT -5
OK, so I located a copy of Polyhedron #6 for sale and bought it--should be in this week, so I'll share any pertinent info then! ^__^
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Sept 4, 2009 23:36:20 GMT -5
Yea!! Finally, a two-day weekend! So, here's some excerpts from the Phantasmal Force/Illusion article from Polyhedron #6, which I believe was written by Frank Mentzer. The following deals with procedures that he had worked out when dealing with illusion based spells: "FIRST, every time an illusion is used, it results in a judgement call by the DM. Every use is in a different situation with different creatures, of different things; and it's just plain impossible to give rules to cover everything. The DM's decision is FINAL--but must be consistent with previous rulings. SECOND, if an illusion is used to duplicate an "attack spell" effect, it should have little or no effect! This also applies to most other spells, but the controversy is usually about the attack types. If there's another spell for the effect and you have to imitate it instead of using the original, you should be penalized heavily. (See hereafter for further discussion on this, in detail) THIRD, if there's anything odd about the illusion, allow saving throws for disbelief, and allot bonuses as you wish. Be fair though; the contrary should apply: if the illusion is very normal or of an expected thing, you may completely disallow the attempt at disbelief. FOURTH, a creature can either believe completely or disbelieve completely, and disbelieving uses a whole round of action. You can't have it halfway or both ways. Furthermore, if a creature tries to disbelieve a real thing, the victim forfeits all saving throws to which he or she would normally be entitled. Disbelieving that real fireball gets you toasted, no saving throw!"
A bit later in the article, this further bit is given: "Consider also whether the victim would know the spell effect like the caster... how does an orc know the effects of a magic missile [if they've never encountered the spell before]? A phantasmal missile would merely be a scary effect, but would not necessarily be seen as a damage-causing attack! A magic-user opponent would be much more susceptible to that type of illusion--but possibly so familiar that it could be easily distinguished from a real one!"
There's more, but I don't feel like typin' it all in... Hopefully, this helps a bit! ^__^
|
|