Disbelieving Illusions

[Menevalgor]

Hello all,
I was taking a look through the 1st edition spells in preparation for a game I'm going to be running, and I realized that I don't really know how disbelieving works. In the past my friends have always just shouted "I disbelieve illusion!" But that always struck me as not really being correct.

So, do any of you guys know how this works? When does one get to disbelieve an illusion and how does it work?

[LibraryOgre]

Generally, that's how it works. You spend a round looking at something carefully, trying to find any discrepancies (hair not moving right, banners moving against the wind, missing some key sounds), then you get a saving throw against the illusion. BTB, anyway.

I let people have a save against the illusion when they interact with it. If you get hit by an illusiory troll, no matter how awesome the illusion, you get a chance to see through it. However, it doesn't disappear, so illusions can be very useful as a means of hiding... make an illusion of something, and hide inside it.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, the way it's written, a person gets a saving throw if they disbelieve the illusion, that's all it really says. It will be up to the DM to decide whether it is appropriate for a character or creature to disbelieve the illusion and get a saving throw.

The use of illusions, like other tricks, really depend a lot on roleplaying and the DM's and players' attention to detail in giving descriptions. It is a matter of the players using their wits and discernment, so players who take actions or ask questions that would allow their characters to see through an illusion should get the saving throw. When it is a player creating the illusions, the detail with which they describe the illusion should play some part, and then use common sense and the dice to decide if a given creature or NPC should get a saving throw (like rolling under their wisdom, or something). It is one of the more difficult areas to adjudicate in the game, as it is very subjective and completely reliant on player and DM descriptions and roleplaying.

If your players use illusions regularly, you might want to put some thought into devising a system to determine when NPC's and monsters can disbelieve the illusions.

[1eGuy]

IMO, there should be a balancing cost to disbelieving things which are not illusions and the cost should reflect the fact that in order to really disbelieve the character has to not react to the illusion on its own terms.

For example: in combat, the disbeliever loses initiative and dex bonuses, because they are not reacting to the attack; if they were defending themselves normally then they clearly are not mentally disbelieving.

Against a real fireball, the disbeliever gets no saving throw as they are not trying to save themselves etc.

This approach discourages players from simply shouting out "I don't believe" every time they enter a room or encounter a monster, which gets tedious very quickly.

Actual illusions I handle more or less as Mark Hall suggested.

[Menevalgor]

So when searching for clues that would show that the illusion isn't real, would that be handled as a saving throw versus the spell, or would it just be that the players can tell if it's an illusion if they inspect it closely (this is assuming a noncombat situation).

[Jay R]

First of all, nobody makes his own saving throw for illusion. If they succeed, and it stays there, that gives them information the character doesn't have. You should not know the difference between an illusion with a failed saving throw and a real situation you tried to disbelieve.

Secondly, it's an infinitely complicated situation, and the correct result is based on the entire situation. I break it down roughly into three situations that I treat differently.

1. It's completely natural. I allow no saving throw unless the PCs give me a reason to disbelieve. I'll accept pretty much anything reasonable, but if you don't have an answer as soon as I ask, you don't get a roll.

DM: You look in the room, and see two archers readying arrows.
PC: I disbelieve in the archers.
DM: Why?
PC: No reason. I just refuse to fall for an illusion.
DM: OK, you stand and stare at them. (Ignores saving throw, rolls attack dice.) The first arrow hits for two points of damage.
PC: Wait a minute, I didn't roll.
DM: I rolled for you.

or
DM: You look in the room, and see two archers readying arrows.
PC: I disbelieve in the archers.
DM: Why?
PC: Because archers don't just stand there looking at a door.
DM: OK, that makes sense. (Rolls saving throw.)

2. Something's a little funny. The roll should be allowed as soon as they ask, or sometimes even if they don't ask.
DM: The wizard attacks you with a sword. (Rolls saving throws. Diane's character Sophia succeeds; Kevn's character Pyxil does not.) Kevin, Pyxil gets hit for eight points. (Hands Diane a note that says, "The wizard doesn't really exist.")
Diane: Sophia calls out, "It's an illusion."
Kevin: "I disbelieve. (DM rolls another saving throw.)

3. It's completely impossible. No roll; they disbelieve.

In yesterday's game, the PCs tried an illusion of a pit opening up under the feet of the enemy. Unfortunately the enemy priest was standing on a raised dais of stone, in his own chapel. He had just overseen the construction of it, and he knew it was impossible. I didn't even roll; he couldn't believe it.

In the next round, they tried another illusion. Since they had just used an illusion, this is automatically situation 2, so he got an immediate saving throw.

[LibraryOgre]

IMO, there should be a balancing cost to disbelieving things which are not illusions and the cost should reflect the fact that in order to really disbelieve the character has to not react to the illusion on its own terms.

For example: in combat, the disbeliever loses initiative and dex bonuses, because they are not reacting to the attack; if they were defending themselves normally then they clearly are not mentally disbelieving.

Against a real fireball, the disbeliever gets no saving throw as they are not trying to save themselves etc.

This approach discourages players from simply shouting out "I don't believe" every time they enter a room or encounter a monster, which gets tedious very quickly.

Actual illusions I handle more or less as Mark Hall suggested.

I think taking a round of doing nothing is enough... if you enforce the round, you don't need anything harsher.

[veti]

So, what exactly happens when you disbelieve an illusion?

A lot of people (Roy Greenhilt, for one) seem to think that the whole thing is basically invisible to you, so you can automatically see whatever's really there. But that's never made a lot of sense to me. I think you don't automatically see "through" it, you still see the illusion, but you know it's not real - like a projected movie, or something.

Is there an authoritative answer on that?

[viking vince]

This is one area that BtB is impossible to live with. You will have to define the rules.

[kyoryu]

I generally require that the character acts in a way that's consistent with it being an illusion.

Saying "I don't think that's really a dragon!" is one thing. Standing and taking a full blast of its breath is another - and the kind of thing that would necessitate a will save.

[Angelalex242]

I think most people never think to disbelieve illusions at all, because the GM doesn't give any clues something might be 'off' or 'wrong' about it.

[hamlet]

I think most people never think to disbelieve illusions at all, because the GM doesn't give any clues something might be 'off' or 'wrong' about it.

Or the players are largely oblivious to their surroundings and not paying attention.

Sometimes, the clues are subtle, but with a good DM, they are there. You just have to be good to catch them. It's just like looking for a secret door, really. If you're mapping well, you can frequently catch a secret room or door simply by the suspiciously blank spot in the map. Illusions work similarly. If something seems strangely different than other places, then maybe it's not really there and you're just imagining it.

[Angelalex242]

In my experience, particularly in play by post or play online...

There's no voice inflection, no reading the GM's eyes to be done. All you have to work with is flat text. If the GM doesn't post something odd about the illusions...

"The warriors attack you" vs. "The warriors attack you, eerily silent, and their hair never moves a millimeter."

How, if all the GM posts is 'the warriors attack you' would you ever figure out it's an illusion?

[hamlet]

In my experience, particularly in play by post or play online...

There's no voice inflection, no reading the GM's eyes to be done. All you have to work with is flat text. If the GM doesn't post something odd about the illusions...

"The warriors attack you" vs. "The warriors attack you, eerily silent, and their hair never moves a millimeter."

How, if all the GM posts is 'the warriors attack you' would you ever figure out it's an illusion?

The exact same can be said about a DM in person.

Like I said, it's about how good your DM is.

[Pigron]

The 2nd edition players handbook has a good section on illusion vs phantasm.

The illusion component is the sensory display created from ethereal substance and the phantasm is the part of the spell that takes hold of the victim's mind.

I instructed my players on the rules for illusions before we started play. If the illusion is missing sensory components, like phantasmal force I would secretly roll an intelligence check for all players each round to see if they notice. I would give a bonus to that roll if it was something ridiculous like a hobgoblin in heavy armor fighting without making a sound.

If a player noticed, I would throw the player a note rolled up in a dice tube, telling him what he noticed and that he must roll to disbelieve and send the result back. I did it this way because no one actually chooses to believe or disbelieve something.

If the player succeeded the roll, he knew it was an illusion and could try to communicate this to the others giving everyone an immediate disbelief roll. If that player fails his first and only disbelief roll, however, the phantasm has taken hold of his mind and he will believe that the illusion is real. No amount of explaining will convince him otherwise and cognitive dissonance will rule.

Really good players will continue to talk about the illusion as if it were a memory, eg "We should be prepared lest we encounter larger numbers of silent hobgoblins. Perhaps the local Laird should be informed so his men can devise a means of spotting them should they attack at night."

If you decide to use the note passing method, you should also get used to sending random notes saying things like, "Smile knowingly, I am just saying, "Hi." " or, send one to the thief saying, "Just a note to keep the others paranoid."

If you desensitize your players to the passing of notes, it will fool the annoying ones from demanding a disbelief roll whenever a note is passed.

[Menevalgor]

Thanks, you guys. That clears up most of what I was wondering. I think I like the idea of allowing saving throws for illusions used in combat situations, and of requiring players to take a round to disbelieve (followed by a saving throw).

[Cybermaniac]

For instances where the players themselves are unaware that there is an illusion, I give them a saving throw, and if they fail, I tell them nothing, whilst describing the illusion much as I'd describe the actual setting. If they make their saving throw, I describe how the illusion is attemping to look, and point out noticable flaws in the set. Then it's up to the players to call illusion or not...

[Jay R]

One of the most reasonable approaches I ever heard of was a DM who was running a fight against a party. The party wizard said, "A dragon comes over the hill and attacks." The DM immediately had the monsters react to it, and then suddenly realized that it had to be an illusion, because he, the DM, knew that the party didn't have a dragon.

He decided that if the party had made the DM believe it, even for a few seconds, then the monsters don't get a saving throw.

I consider that a very elegant call.

[rredmond]

The rule of cool is the best rule of all.

Though that was certainly a different situation, I like the DM's call afterward.

Good stuff!
--Ron--

[Meronin]

So, what exactly happens when you disbelieve an illusion?

A lot of people (Roy Greenhilt, for one) seem to think that the whole thing is basically invisible to you, so you can automatically see whatever's really there. But that's never made a lot of sense to me. I think you don't automatically see "through" it, you still see the illusion, but you know it's not real - like a projected movie, or something.

Is there an authoritative answer on that?

Lower level illusion spells were generally good enough to fool anyone short of a twinked gnome or a demigod without studying them, so at the very least the image was good enough. Once you hit higher level illusions, you're in the realm of solid light and high quality copies; they're fake and eventually they'll be rats and pumpkins again, but while you believe it they sure as hell do look, feel and act like the real thing even if you're touching them.

[Azraile]

A good way to discourage them from doing this to much is make rolls to disbelieve hidden and if the roll sucks badly enough they think they see through an illusion when one was never there

Bonus if it's something ungodfully painful and they walk right into it

[Particle_Man]

3. It's completely impossible. No roll; they disbelieve.

In yesterday's game, the PCs tried an illusion of a pit opening up under the feet of the enemy. Unfortunately the enemy priest was standing on a raised dais of stone, in his own chapel. He had just overseen the construction of it, and he knew it was impossible. I didn't even roll; he couldn't believe it.

In the next round, they tried another illusion. Since they had just used an illusion, this is automatically situation 2, so he got an immediate saving throw.

Unfair, but I had this vision of someone casting a spell that actually opened up a pit beneath the enemy priest. Does he just fall into the pit with no saving throw?