PDA

View Full Version : Disbelief?



appending_doom
2008-04-04, 09:29 PM
Okay, so I've got a question about illusions.

If you successfully identify a spell an opponent casts as an illusion, does this provide proof that the illusion isn't real, thereby discarding the need for a saving throw?

It's something I've never really considered, and it seems an important question. If successful identification of an illusion spell renders it useless, it means there's a class of combat illusions that are pointless to use against spellcasters.

SurlySeraph
2008-04-04, 10:03 PM
Honest answer: I don't know.

Subjective answer: I'd rule that it obviates the need for a saving throw, but I don't write the rules.

Collin152
2008-04-04, 10:10 PM
Okay, so I've got a question about illusions.

If you successfully identify a spell an opponent casts as an illusion, does this provide proof that the illusion isn't real, thereby discarding the need for a saving throw?

It's something I've never really considered, and it seems an important question. If successful identification of an illusion spell renders it useless, it means there's a class of combat illusions that are pointless to use against spellcasters.

I think when you provide proof for others, they get a saving throw at +2 bonus. But That's probably me sayign something completley random, so don't take me the least bit seriously.

Overlord
2008-04-04, 10:29 PM
Wow. This is the third thread recently that has reminded me of the KoDT comic strip.

Whenever the player had something bad happen to them, they had their characters attempt to "disbelieve" in case it's an illusion.

DM: "The rabid pitbull tears into your throat, severing your jugular vein."
Dave: "I disbelieve!"

appending_doom
2008-04-04, 10:29 PM
Well, the rules from the SRD are below.

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.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

I suppose the question is what constitutes proof.

Collin152
2008-04-04, 10:31 PM
Ah. I was confused and had a smaller bonus.
But at least I wasn't making it all up.

FlyMolo
2008-04-04, 11:21 PM
Well, the rules from the SRD are below.

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.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

I suppose the question is what constitutes proof.

Nah, the question is how much your spellcaster knows about the other, about spells, and how much leeway your DM is giving you. I would allow this in general, but invent NPCs, like high level mages in a mage order that worked out how to use the illusion hand signals for a summon monster spell. Enemy mage sees illusion signals, laughs at the fiendish pitbull, and gets eaten.

Townopolis
2008-04-04, 11:21 PM
Psst, hey, illusionists... buy complete scoundrel.

Conceal Spellcasting and False Theurgy are both great ways to get around this. (my opinion is that successful spellcraft does constitute proof) Easy for beguilers to get, less so for others, but possibly worth it.

Cuddly
2008-04-04, 11:30 PM
Letting players replace anything will skill checks- not a great idea. Skill checks are super easy to make.

thubby
2008-04-04, 11:38 PM
A) there are plenty of illusions that can beat the tar out of you regardless, proving it's an illusion doesn't prove its a harmless one.
B) characters don't know if they succeed. for all they know they got it that wrong
C) head knowledge and intuitive knowledge are 2 different things. we all know there is nothing in the abandoned house, doesn't mean your heart rate won't triple if you try to go in.

I'd allow at max a +4 on their save.

Chronos
2008-04-04, 11:51 PM
Wow. This is the third thread recently that has reminded me of the KoDT comic strip.

Whenever the player had something bad happen to them, they had their characters attempt to "disbelieve" in case it's an illusion.That's an old strip, though, right? They were probably playing under 2nd edition rules, which treated illusions differently. Under 2nd edition rules, you didn't even get a chance to disbelieve an illusion unless you specifically said you were trying, and you got a bonus if you had a good, articulable reason to disbelieve ("If that were a real fireball, it would have made a 'whoosh' sound and smelled like sulfur. I think it's just a Silent Image"). And if you believed an illusion, you would also believe that you were taking damage from it, etc., and if you believed you were dropped to 0, you'd go unconscious. So if something did happen to be an illusion, it was essential to have declared that you disbelieved it. On the other hand, if you tried to disbelieve something and it turned out to be real, you forfeited any saving throw you might have gotten against it, so it was definitely not to your advantage to disbelieve everything.

In short, illusions were a lot nastier in 2nd.

kpenguin
2008-04-05, 01:32 AM
Nah, the question is how much your spellcaster knows about the other, about spells, and how much leeway your DM is giving you. I would allow this in general, but invent NPCs, like high level mages in a mage order that worked out how to use the illusion hand signals for a summon monster spell. Enemy mage sees illusion signals, laughs at the fiendish pitbull, and gets eaten.

Spellcraft check. I don't care how close those motions are, I can still identify what spell you're casting.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-05, 01:33 AM
It's a Skill Trick from Complete Scoundrel that allows you to make one spell look like another, even with a successful Spellcraft check.

sikyon
2008-04-05, 02:19 AM
With a spellcraft check you should be able to identify it. However, you should also have the possibility of auto-failing your throw if bungle your spellcraft check and you think it's an illusion, therefore not resisting it. Finally, you're going to need to combo this with spot or listen to identify the spell being cast. It's likely that an illusion spell being cast right infront of you is going to be shadow evocation, however, which is infact partially real...

Overlord
2008-04-05, 04:03 PM
That's an old strip, though, right? They were probably playing under 2nd edition rules, which treated illusions differently. Under 2nd edition rules, you didn't even get a chance to disbelieve an illusion unless you specifically said you were trying, and you got a bonus if you had a good, articulable reason to disbelieve ("If that were a real fireball, it would have made a 'whoosh' sound and smelled like sulfur. I think it's just a Silent Image"). And if you believed an illusion, you would also believe that you were taking damage from it, etc., and if you believed you were dropped to 0, you'd go unconscious. So if something did happen to be an illusion, it was essential to have declared that you disbelieved it. On the other hand, if you tried to disbelieve something and it turned out to be real, you forfeited any saving throw you might have gotten against it, so it was definitely not to your advantage to disbelieve everything.

In short, illusions were a lot nastier in 2nd.

Yes, it was an old strip. The reader's knowledge of how badly the Knights were trying to subvert the rules is part of what made the joke funny. The other part is the whole "I attempt to disbelieve the gaping hole in my chest!" thing.