Below, anything in italics represents TSR material. Text in [] pairs is my summary of something said by TSR, and anything in quotes is a direct quote from the indicated source. Everything else is a comment by me which points out inconsistencies in the TSR explanation, agrees with TSR interpretations, and/or offers justification for a small part of my theory.
Finally, because TSR has divided the school of illusions into illusions and phantasms, it makes it difficult to distinguish between the two different means of illusion (school or magic type). To avoid confusion, I will always make it explicit, by referring to the school of illusion, or illusion magic, depending on whether I am refering to all types of magic within the school of illusion, or the specific type of magic affecting sensory perception.
"Illusions deal with spells to deceive the senses or minds of others. Spells that cause people to see things that are not there, hear noises not made, or remember things that never happened are all illusions."
This implies that illusions reside entirely in the mind of the viewer. TSR implicitly contradicts this statement in much of what is presented below.
[Illusions are hard to role play]
Which is why I wrote up this discussion :^)
"Spells of this school fall into two basic groups. illusions are creations that manipulate light, color, shadow, sound and sometimes even scent. Higher level illusions tap energy from other planes, and are actually quasi-real, being woven of extradimensional energies by the caster. Common illusions create appearances; they cannot conceal objects (i.e. invisible), but they can conceal objects by making them look like something else."
So, TSR has divided the school of illusion into two groups: illusions (which I will refer to as illusion magic, to distinguish from the school itself), and phantasms. Unfortunately, TSR is not very consistent in how they define each of the two groups. For example, in much of what TSR discusses, they talk as if illusion magic actually controls light, color, shadow, sound and scent. That is, that such magic modifies physical reality by controlling photons (light, shadow and color), physical vibrations (sound), and the structure of molecules (scent). This would imply that illusions are a combination of evocation and alteration magic, rather than being a distinct form of magic. I prefer to treat illusions and phantasms as existing entirely in the mind of the recipient, for the following reasons:
Since I want illusion magic (as opposed to the school of illusion) to be purely mind-affecting, I introduce another group of magic within the school of illusion, called shadow magic, in order to account for those spells that are quasi-real. It is quite easy to classify spells according to whether they are predominantly illusion, phantasm or shadow (giving me, at least, some indication that the split into three types of magic is reasonable).
Finally, I don't quite agree with TSR's statement about illusions not being able to conceal objects (note that they are implicitly talking about the general concentration-based illusion spells). Concentration-based illusions should be able to make something invisibile; it just happens to be much more difficult to accomplish than with the specialized spells designed for that purpose. I appreciate that TSR is trying to maintain game balance, but it can be done in a manner that maintains consistency.
To appreciate how difficult concentration-based invisibility would be, think about what is required. For each viewer, the caster must make them think they see what is behind the to-be-invisible object. If the object being made invisible is stationary, and the illusion is only to work on one person, this is relatively easy for the caster to do, as long as he can see what the target would see. If the target and/or illusionary object (i.e. person) are also moving, or there are multiple targets, or the illusionist can't see what is behind the illusion, the challenge becomes truly difficult, but not necessarily impossible.
This discussion about the difficulty of concentration-based invisibility begs the question of how difficult any concentration-based illusion is. I argue that invisibility is one of the hardest concentration-based illusions to create properly (of course, invisibility via the Invisibility spell isn't difficult at all), because the caster must "model" reality, and thus has more constraints within which to work, than an illusion drawn purely from imagination. However, this does not imply that concentration-based illusions drawn from imagination are easy; far from it, actually.
By looking at all of the concentration-based spells, it can be observed that all of these spells have a general area of effect (rather than targeting specific individuals). I am attempting to make a consistent theory about illusions. Having already assumed that illusion magic is purely mind-affecting, with respect to concentration-based illusions I have two possible explanations; such spells:
I have choosen the second possibility, for a variety of reasons. For one, permanent illusion is in my list of general, concentration-based spells, but it is different than the others in that concentration is necessary to create the illusion, but not to maintain it. The first possibility mentioned above does not allow for this phenomenon, whereas the second one does. As well, it seems much easier to have to imagine a complete 3-D image than to have to worry about multiple targets and changing perspectives (the first possibility also implies that the more individuals in the area of effect, the more difficult the illusion). As it is, trying to maintain a complete 3-D image is an extremely challenging prospect, so I propose the following: illusion magic is very powerful; not only does it affect the minds of target creatures to induce sensory perception, it also substantially increases the spatial- temporal concentration of the caster. The caster's ability to imagine what an scene looks like from all possible directions is drastically magnified.
Phantasms exist only in the minds of their victims; these spells are never even quasi-real. (The exceptions to this are the phantasmal force spells, which are actually illusions, rather than phantasms.) Phantasms act upon the mind of the victim to create an intense reaction - fear being most common."
Here again, TSR is implicitly saying that illusion magic does not exist only in the minds of targets, and once again, I reiterate, it makes more sense to treat both illusions and phantasms as purely mind-affecting phenomenon, and hypothesize a new magic (shadow magic) to handle quasi-real effects.
That said, phantasm magic affect feelings, emotions and beliefs, while illusion magic affects sensory perception. Notice that these two types of magic are very complementary to one another. Since sensory perceptions strongly influence feelings, emotions and beliefs, which in turn color how sensory input is interpreted, illusion magic and phantasm magic go hand in hand, and support one another very well. These observations, however, bring up the question of whether phantasm magic is strictly required to support illusion magic. If an individual sees an arrow shooting towards him, and has no reason to disbelieve it, then isn't it likely that they will convince themselves that they feel pain? Once again, I am imagining the power of hypnotism in our world, and I think such would definitely occur. Thus, just because an illusion does not explicitly induce pain does not mean that it will fail; the recipients may provide missing sensations themselves.
"The key to successful illusion or phantasms is believability; what the caster attempts, what the victim expects, and what is happening at the moment the spell is cast...."
Absolutely, bevelievability is the crucial ingredient in all of this discussion. From this, I want to introduce some more metrics into the casting of illusions, ones that TSR does not address. In particular, it makes sense that the overall effectiveness of the illusion be based not only on the spell cast, but also on the intelligence of the caster, the level of the caster, and the amount of experience with the illusion in question the caster has. This last point, about specific experience, is something I stress very highly in my theory. As well, the intelligence, illusion experience, and overall knowledge base of the recipients also substantially affects the functioning of illusions.
"When casting an illusion or phantasm, the caster can attempt to do anything he desires within the physical limits of the spell. Prior knowledge of the illusion created is not necessary but is extremely useful.[example about Delsenora, who has fought trolls, but never seen a beholder].
The type of image choosen by the caster affects the reaction of the victim. If the victim in the above case has seen both a troll and a beholder, which will be more believable?"
i.e. wizards casting illusions should receive some specific benefit from continual practice with certain images, and penalties for lack of experience with the subject material.
"The next important consideration is to ask if the spell creates something the victim expects. [example about kobolds/dragon vs. kobolds/ogres]. The key to a good illusion is to create something the victim does not expect, but can quickly accept."
Thus, the knowledge-base of the recipients is also very important (which is only one reason why recipient intelligence is important). If the recipient does not know how dangerous medusae are, then an illusion of one is not going to have nearly as powerful an affect as it could have.
"The most believable illusion may be that of a solid wall in a dungeon, transforming a passage into a dead end. Unless the victim is familiar with these hallways, he has no reason not to believe that the wall is there.[discussion about illusions more believable in fantasy world than in our world, but, that this only goes so far]"
Small side tangent here. A person failing a save will actually feel this wall. Remember that these spells change the sensory perceptions of the individual, sometimes under the direction of the caster, and sometimes under the direction of the recipients subconcious mind.
"This then leads to the third factor in the believability of an illusion, how appropriate the illusion is for the situation. As mentioned before, the victim is going to have certain expectations about any given encounter. The best illusions reinforce these expectations to your character's advantage. [example about illusion of glinting armor and spears to support reality]
This is very obvious - an illusion that represents something common is much more likely to be believed than one that represents something uncommon.
"However, the limitations of each spell must be considered when judging appropriateness. A phantasmal force spell creates vision only. It does not provide sound, light or heat. [example about galloping soldiers]. A wise spell-caster always considers the limitations of his illusions and finds ways to hide their weaknesses from the enemy."
Here again, TSR is being contradictory in their model of how illusions work. One one hand, they imply that it is illusion (creates vision), and on the other, imply it modifies reality (by causing sound, light and heat). They should have kept everything in terms of sensory perceptions.
I happen to have an even larger theory of magic in general that encompasses my theory on illusions, and I usually specify that the intelligence, casting level, and specific experience (with a spell) of the caster has substantial effect on the spell. I have attempted to generalize the spells provided by TSR, without really increasing their power, wherever possible. As an example, in my campaigns, phantasmal force creates the illusion of any one sensory perception, from sight to sound to taste to smell to touch (including sensations of heat). After presenting my theory, I have listed all of the illusion spells, suitably modified to fit my theory, if you are interested.
"An illusion spell, therefore, depends on its believability. Believability is determined by the situation and a saving throw. Under normal circumstances, those observing the illusion are allowed a saving throw vs. spell if they actively disbelieve the illusion. For player characters, disbelieving is an action in itself, and takes a round. For NPCs and monsters, a normal saving throw is made if the DM deems it appropriate. [comments on saving throw bonuses]. A good indication of when player characters should receive a positive modifier to their saving throw is when they say they don't believe what they see, especially if they can give reasons why. [comments about automatic saves and failures being rare]"
Well, I really dislike the way TSR wrote this part up. Because of the terminology they used it was inevitable that players would start saying "I try to disbelieve the room", whenever they had even a hint of illusions around. Since I'm big into enforcing that what the players say, the characters say, unless explicitly stated otherwise, this type of statement makes no sense (the players are relying on information that their characters cannot possibly have). Furthermore, a player character shouldn't necessarily get a bonus on saves just because the player doesn't believe what he sees; often, this is the only time when a saving throw should be allowed at all! I don't like the image of a PC in the middle of a room squeezing his eyes shut and concentrating really hard on the room revealing its "true colors" - it is usually very silly. I never allow players to say that they are disbelieving something. If illusions have not been a part of the current adventure, and a player makes an intelligent hypothesis about something possibly being an illusion, they immediately get a saving throw. If the PC informs others in the party, they also get a saving throw. If the players are expecting illusions, and walking around disbelieving, they very definitely do *not* get a saving throw unless they can provide evidence (known to their characters) to support this.
"In many encounters, some party members will believe an illusion while others see it for what it really is. In these cases, revealing the truth to those deluded by the spell is not a simple matter of telling them. The magic of the spell has seized their minds. Consider from their point of view, they see a horrible monster (or whatever) while a friend is telling them it isn't real. They know magic can affect people's minds, but whose mind has been affected in this case? At best, having an illusion pointed out grants another saving throw with a +4 bonus."
It is often possible to describe what each individual is experiencing in such a way that the players themselves don't know what is illusion, and what isn't. Rolling PC saving throws yourself and passing around prepared notes is an excellent way of doing this.
This actually leads into the whole discussion of what happens when a character disbelieves in an illusion. Again, although TSR doesn't come right out and say it, the traditional view is that if an entity saves against the illusion, they do not see it at all. To my way of thinking, this seems rather silly (as well as limiting), and I much prefer an alternative approach. Instead of having the illusion disappear, the entity becomes aware of the illusion. Once realized as such, the illusion can in no way distract or effect the entity, but the entity can still see the illusion. However, the entity can also choose to see what is behind the illusion, as well. Remember, illusions deal with tricking the mind, and the entity who has saved has just realized the mental trick necessary to flip between two different "optical" views, much like looking at Escher paintings. The entity can see or not see the illusion, as they desire.
The benefits of this approach are mostly in role-playing potential, but it also has some interesting implications. Using the traditional interpretation of the effects of disbelief, an entity who saved couldn't "pretend" to believe the illusion, because they couldn't see the illusion at all, so they couldn't react to it. As well, the old version seems really silly when thought of in the context of a high-level illusionist teaching a low-level acolyte the subtleties of phantasmal force. If the teacher knows it is an illusion, his chances of saving are very high, so this means he can't give any constructive criticisms about what the illusion looks like - he can't see it! Of course, you might argue that the teacher can choose not to make his saving throw, in which case he will be able to see the illusion. So, if illusions worked that way, a teacher would either not be able to see the illusion at all, or would be susceptible to all effects that the illusion would incur. I don't like that model; I much prefer the concept that disbelieved illusions can be seen or not seen by choice.
"Illusions do have other limitations. The caster must maintain a show of reality at all times when conducting an illusion. (If a squad of low-level fighters is created, the caster dictates their hits, misses, damage inflicted, apparent wounds, and so forth, and the referee decides whether the bounds of believability have been exceeded.) Maintaining an illusion normally requires concentration on the part of the caster, preventing him from doing other things. Disturb him and the illusion vanishes."
This brings up a variety of questions, most of which will be answered later. How many fighers can the illusionist realistically maintain? Think about our discussions before about invisiblity. Making the fighters is in some ways easier (illusions of reality are harder than illusions based on imagination) but in some ways much more difficult. Making one fighter attack and react appropriately to attacks is a challenge in itself, never mind trying to handle illusions with multiple independent fighters. A method of handling this idea of "splitting" control will be presented later. Another question is, what does illusionary damage do to recipients?
As well, there are two possible ways in which a caster can be disturbed. If disturbed sufficiently that his spell concentration is broken (i.e. attacked and damage incurred), then yes, the entire spell instantly expires. However, even minor distractions may cause subtle flaws to occur in the illusion, if only for a few seconds while the caster regains his concentration. This is a perfect time to allow victims of the spell another saving throw, adjusted appropriately.
"Illusions are spells of trickery and deceit, not damage and destruction. Thus, illusions cannot be used to cause real damage. When a creature is caught in the blast of an illusionary fireball or struck by the claws of an illusionary troll, he thinks he takes damage. [DM note] If the character takes enough damage to "die", he collapses in a faint. A system shock roll should be made for the character. (His mind, belieiving the damage to be real, may cause his body to cesae functioning!). If the character survives, he regains conciousness after 1d3 turns with his illusionary damage healed. In most cases, the character quickly realizes that it was all an illusion.When an illusion creates a situation of inescapable death, such as a giant block dropping from the ceiling, all those believing the illusion must roll for system shock. If they fail, they die - killed by the sheer terror fo the situation. If they pass, they are allowed a new saving throw with a +4 bonus. Those who pass recognize the illusion for what it is. Those who fail faint for 1d3 turns."
I've already pointed out other areas where TSR demonstrates that they don't have a consistent model of illusions, and this is another. Some higher-level illusion spells do cause damage, and yet they say here that illusions cannot be used to cause real damage. Now, if they had been more specific, and clarified that they meant that general, concentration-based illusion spells cannot cause real damage, or that illusion magic (as opposed to the school of illusions) cannot cause damage, then they would not be contradicting themselves. In my theory, both of the above statements are true: no concentration-based or illusion magic based spell causes physical damage. Remember that I have introduced a new type of magic (shadow magic) to explain quasi-real effects.
I also think that surviving a system shock roll or death is too extreme for simply being reduced to 0 hitpoints. A person (in the real world) hypnotized into believing they have been gut-shot is very unlikely to die. However, if such a person is assumed to have a constitution of 10, then in the AD&D world, they are very likely to die! At the least, I say that they should have substantial bonuses on their system shock, or that such a roll should only occur in extreme causes. Put the individual in a coma or something, but don't kill them!
"Illusions do not enable characters to defy normal physical laws. An illusionary bridge cannot support a character who steps on it, even if he believes the bridge is real. An illusionary wall does not actually cause a rock trhown at it to bounce off. However, affected creatures attempt to simulate the reality of what they see as much as possible. A character who falls into an illusionary pit drops to the ground as if he had fallen. A character may lean against an illusionary wall, not realizing that he isn't actually putting his weight on it. If the same character were suddenly pushed, he would find himself falling through the very wall he thought was solid!"
Yes. I agree with this as it is written.
"Illusions of creatures do not automatically behave like those creatures, nor do they have those creatures' powers. This depends on the caster's ability and the victim's knowledge of the creatures. Iluusionary creatures fight using the caster's combat ability. They take damage and die when their caster dictates it. An illusory orc could continue to fight, showing no damage, even after it had been struck a hundred or a thousand times. Of course, long before this its attacks will become suspicious. Ilusionary creatures can have whatever special abilities the caster can make appear (i.e. a dragon's fiery breath or a troll's regeneration), but they do not necessarily have unseen special abilities. There is no way a caster can create the illusion of a basilisk's gaze that turns people to stone. However, these abilities might be manifested through the fears of the victims. [example about Rath and a illusionary basilisk whose gaze he was knowledgable about]."
Illusionary combat is difficult not only because of the difficulty in realistically creating such a complex illusion, but because the illusionist must either make the victims think that they always miss the illusions, or that supposed damaged done by the victim on the illusions is sustained in specific ways. If the illusionist allows the character to make a huge swing, and doesn't have the illusionary attacker duck or somehow avoid the swing, then the victim gets another saving throw, usually at a substantial bonus (if they save, they realize that their sword passed right through the illusion, if they fail, the magic of the illusion was powerful enough to make them ignore this anomaly). Remember that combat consists of much more than just the one or two "real" possiblities to hit - it is assumed that the participants are continually thrusting, feinting and parrying as they test each other for openings. If a victim is parrying with an illusion, the controller of the illusion must be extremely careful about how the illusion responds. The victim will fence and duel with an illusionary combatant, "believing" that their weapon meets the opponents weapon (subconciously stopping their own weapon, etc), but a lack of sound would be a dead giveaway in such a situation. As well, as soon as the victim makes an attack meant to break through his opponents defenses, the caster will need to make the illusion react accordingly.
"All illusions are cases of DM adjudication; each depends upon the exact situational factors deemed significant by the DM. All of the following points are only subsidary guidelines to help the DM maintain consistency.Intrinsically Deadly Illusions: "Instant kill" illusions that are automatically fatal regardless of level, Hit Dice, or saving trhows: collasping ceilings, inescapable lava pits, etc. The absolute maximum effect of these is to force a system shock check. Surviving characters are not further affected by that illusion."
I mentioned before that I think a system shock role is too extreme, unless big bonuses are allowed.
"Spell Effects: Illusions that duplicate spell effects are keyed to the caster's level (e.g. a 10th-level illusionist casting a fireball can create a convincing 10-die fireball). Exceeding this limit creates a fatal flaw in the illusion that negates its effect."
I appreciate that TSR is just trying to maintain game balance, but I wish they wouldn't have such a hang-up on discontinuous effects. Make it a gradient! If the illusion is of an entity of higher level than the caster, there is a 20% per level difference bonus to the victim's saving throw.
"Monster Special Abilities: Before the caster can effectively duplicate a monster's special attack, the wizard must have undergone it (a wizard cannot conjure up the twinkle in a medusa's eye correctly without actually experiencing it - i.e. having been turned to stone by one)."
Nah, this is silly. Obviously the victim isn't really going to turn to stone no matter how good the illusion is. The illusion has power because the victim believes in it - if he sees a medusa, and knows what looking at a medusa will do, it is likely that he will immediately faint. I say it is likely, because this situation might call for a saving throw.
Option: Illusionary monsters attack using the wizard's attack values. This would be a subtle clue that the monsters are fake.
When I first read this, I thought the whole concept of requiring "to hit" rolls for illusionary monsters was pretty silly, never mind restricting these rolls to match those of the caster. The caster has complete control over what the illusion does. If the caster wants the illusionary monster to hit the victim, it will! But I realized there is a way that such a "to hit" roll requirement could be interpreted that makes sense. The illusion has power because of the victims belief in it. However, the victim also has faith in his own combat ability, and some general understanding of how well he should do against an entity of whatever type he is supposedly fighting. He might "convince" himself that a particular attack from the illusionary creature missed, based on these expectations. I do not, however, agree that such illusionary monsters should attack with the casters to-hit rolls. If anything were to influence the chances of a hit, it would be the amount of knowledge the victim has of the illusionary creature. If only hearsay is known, the victim may underestimate or overestimate the capabilities of the illusion (to the victims advantage or disadvantage respectively). If the victim has fought against real creatures of this type, to-hit modifiers depend on how well the victim fared in those previous encounters. To summarize, if the victim *thinks* the illusionary monster will be easy or hard to defeat, it will be! See below for more.
"Option: Extend the spell level control to monsters - the caster can create monsters oly if the total monster Hit Dice are equal to or less than the caster's level (an 8th-level caster could convincingly do one hill giant, two ogres, or four 2nd-level fighters)."
Once again, I don't like the discontinuity of this. Rather than a flat limit, I give bonuses to save modifiers if the caster attempts to create an illusion of a higher level.
It is worth explaining that it is possible to make the illusion of a 15th level fighter, rather than just "a figher" - the illusion is in the mind of the victim - not only does it affect what sensory effects are experienced, it also (via the phantasm component) can affect and influence the victims beliefs - in this case, their assumptions about skill, etc. It is up to individual DM's to determine if a 10th-level caster can create the illusion of a 10th-level fighter without allowing a saving throw bonus to saves (or allowing a save where one wouldn't have been allowed before).
"Illusion spells require a higher degree of DM-player interaction than other wiard spells. The timing and staging of such spells by the caster are extremely important. Effects that appear out of nowhere are not believed unless the caster takes this into account. On the other hand, an illusionary fireball cast after a wizard has cast a real one could have devastating effects".
This is common sense. Since I emphasize caster level, intelligence and specific-illusion experience, I require that the PC's provide descriptions of the illusions they have had significant practise with. As well, since illusion-casting PC's often like to use the illusions on other PC's, I try to facilitate communications between myself and the illusion casters in such a way that the other PC's don't know what is being communicated.
"The caster must maintain a show of realism at all times when conducting an illusion (if a squad of low-level fighters is created, the caster dictates their hits, misses, damage inflicted, appararent wounds, and so forth; the DM decides whether the bounds of believability have been exceeded).
Well, a 10th-level caster making 10 illusionary 1st level fighters, each of which attacks a separate victim, definitely exceeds believability, in my books - the bonus to the saving throws that each victim received would be very high (like +19 or so :-) Imagine what this would entail. The caster would have to process information from 10 different sources at the same time, and visual 10 complete 3-D images to respond to completely different stimuli, and all in real-time.
However, if all 10 illusionary fighters were to surround a cloud giant (but not actually attack), I'd allow it without too much of saving throw modifer (maybe +2 or so). The modifier exists because the caster must generate illusions that do different things. An illusion of 10 1st-level fighters simply standing would not give a modifier (or, usually, even allow a saving throw). If the 10 fighters were to be marching in step, the modifier may be 0, or +1; it is much easier to make an illusion of multiple things all the same, and/or all doing the same thing, than it is to make an illusion of many different things doing different things.
"NPC illusions require careful preparation by the DM, including clues to their nature.Intelligence is the best defence against illusions. Low and non-intelligent creatures are more vulnerable to illusions, unless the illusion is completely outside their experience or the illusion touches on an area of the creature's particular competence. Undead are generally immune to illusions, but they are vulnerable to quasi-real effects, most of which start to appear in the 4th-level spell list."
Not just if the effect is "completely outside their experience". As I discussed before, the effectiveness of the illusion depends entirely on the knowledge the victim has of the illusion. If an entity has fought 10 trolls previously, and found them all very easy to defeat, then he will also find an illusionary troll quite easy to defeat (i.e. the troll won't hit as often as it should, etc.)
"Illusions usually cease to affect a character if they are actively disbelieved. Disbelief must be stated by the player, based on clues provided by the DM. Players stating disbelief must give a reason for disbelief based on sensory information available to the character. Failure to give such a reason results in failure to disbelieve. The DM can impose additional requirements or delays in recognizing illusions (such as Intelligence checks) as needed, such as when one player is obviously parroting a discovery made by another. Disbelief automatically forfeits a saving throw if the effect is real.For NPCs, a saving throw, Intelligence check, or DM adjudication can be used to determine disbelief, whichever the DM deems appropriate."
Yes, I agree with this! I have mentioned before what my thoughts are on players "disbelieving".
"Spells from the school of illusion bend reality to create apparent changes in the environment, in the caster, or in other persons or creatures. These spells do not cause real changes as alteration spells do, but instead alter the way that creatures and persons perceive reality. This school includes both illusion and phantasm spells (the differences are discussed in the Spell Analysis section below).
Well, once again, they say that illusion spells don't cause damage. I really like my concept of shadow magic - it gives a solid explanation for how real damage can occur.
"Illusions are spells that simulate reality, creating artificial conditions of light, color, sound and scent. Audible Glamer is an example of an illusion that simulates sound. In general, the lower level illusions are of limited use in combat situations, providing neither direct protection from damage, nor the ability to inflict damage on opponents"
It is this type of statement that gives illusions a bad name! So what if no real damage is incurred. If an entity believes they are damaged, and ends up collapsing because of it, it is just as good as if they had suffered real damage! Low level spells may not provide direct protection from damage, but they can be truly powerful spells if used by intelligent players.
"Though most illusions create only the appearance of reality, some high-level spells tap extradimensions forces to create illusion with physical substance, capable of inflicting damage and otherwise interacting with the real world. Shadow monsters is an example of a quasi-real illusion. These are the most useful types of illusion spells in combat, as they can create illusionary creatures to attack opponents and execute an assortment of other tactical actions."
It just seems to make too much sense to introduce shadow magic into this discussion, doesn't it?
"Another type of illusion focuses extradimensional forces to alter the physical form of the caster. Wraithform is an example. These are especially good defensive spells, as they protect the caster froma variety of attack forms."
No. Wraithform uses magic from both the Illusion and Alteration schools. The component of the spell that alters the physical form of the caster uses Alteration magic, not anything from the school of Illusion.
"Phantasms are the second general group of illusion spells. Phantasms directly manipulate the perception of their victims. Phantasms do no create images, they induce responses. Spook is an example of a phantasm that induces the response of fear. Phantasms are also good defensive spells, more so than illusions that alter the caster's form, since they can affect a number of opponents within a given range."
Most illusion spells have a phantasm component. For example, Phantasmal Force, although obviously constituted primarily of illusion magic, relies on phantasm magic to make victims ignore small discrepancies in the illusion (for example, fencing with swords).
"Whether an NPC is able to disbelieve a PC wizard's illusion or whether a PC is able to disbelieve an NPC illusion is ultimately up to the DM. The DM should allow a saving throw against an illusion if the subject has any reason at all to doubt the existence of what he is experiencing. To account for the degree of realism in a given illusion, as well as any information available to the subject about the perceived illusion, the DM should modify the subject's saving throws with appropriate bonuses and penalties.How does a DM make these decisions? There are a number of factors that can be considered to help determine bonuses and penalities for saving throws. It's unrealistic to expect the DM to meticulously consider evaluate every aspect of an illusion before he decides on the modifiers, but the following can be used as general guidelines."
I like the idea of having a table that lists all the modifiers, based on the illusion content, the subject, the caster, and the situation. However, due to the number of possible variations, the mechanics of such a table very quickly becomes extremely cumbersome. I'm sure that TSR has run across exactly the same frustration - how do we give a more structured system for illusions without wasting all the time on mechanics. Illusions are very difficult for DM's to handle properly, and a great deal of practice is needed to be able to make accurate determinations of when subjects should have a chance to save, and what types of modifiers should be applied to their save rolls.
However, if you do want to use a modifier based approach to illusion adjudication, some of these modifiers can be pre-calculated, especially if PC casters are required to provide a list of illusions they have "practiced" with. As well, if the DM provides PC's with the list of modifiers based on the caster, the PC is responsible for providing such adjustments, rather than requiring the DM to calculate them at all times.
"The most important element in determining an illusion's believability is its complexity. The more complex the illusion, the more difficult it is for the caster to get all the details right, and the more likely it is for a subject to notice a mistake. There are more details to a fire-breathing dragon than there are to a stationary boulder, so it is no surprise that a subject would be more likely to disbelieve the illusionary dragon than he would the illusionary rock.An illusion can be a re-creation of a non-living (inanimate) or a living (animate) object. These need to be treated in different ways."
My theory goes into quite a bit more detail about complexity than is discussed by TSR. For example, the concept of multiple "threads", or separate sub-illusions, etc. TSR has divided their modifiers according to complexity, special illusions, and illusion flaws. I provide a much more diverse collection of modifiers based on illusion content, subject, caster, and situation, so my categories are somewhat orthogonal to the ones discussed below.
In general, the complexity of non-living objects depends on size ( a pebble vs. a boulder), number (a single boulder vs. a dozen boulders scattered over an area), and appearance (a smooth gray boulder vs. a sparkling, multi-colored gem). External forces affecting the object also affect its complexity (wind blowing pebbles along the ground or an avalanche of boulders tumbling down a hill).If the illusion has an excessive number of sensory elements, the subject's saving throw may receive a positive modifier. What constituties an excessive number of elements? A single color or texture (for instance, a smooth gray boulder) is not excessive. Multiple colors and textures (a pile of various types of gems or minerals) or several different sensory elements (a field of variously colored flowers that have a variety of fragrances) could be considered excessive, as could the illusion of motion, such as boulders tumbling down a hill.
These factors are not necessarily cumulative; in fact, only in the most exceptional cases would an illusion of non-living objects result in a saving throw modifier of more than +2.
Examples:
- An illusion of a single blue diamond. Saving throw modifier:0. Nothing about this illusion is p articular difficult since it is a single, stationary item.
- An illusion of ten thousand sparkling blue diamonds tumbling in an avalanche down a hillside. Saving throw: +2. There are a large number of items, they're sparkling, and they're in motion. THe comparatively high saving throw bonus is also justified by the extremely unusual effect - a character might accept an avalanche of boulders, but an avalanche of diamonds is likely to arouse suspicion."
The TSR modifiers provided here are being somewhat cautious, primarily because they do not provide very many negative modifiers. Since it makes more sense to me that caster level and specific-illusion experience of the caster should affect chances to save, I feel differently. If a first level caster tried the 10,000 blue diamonds above, and hadn't ever tried the illusion before, nor seen the effect before (pretty darned unlikely!) I would have no problems with assigning a modifier of up to +5, not just +2! On the other hand, if the caster had spent a considerable amount of time practicing this illusion, and was higher than 10th level, a modifier of 0 or +1 would be acceptable (depending on other factors to be discussed below).
"Generally, the higher the Hit Dice or level of the illusionary creature, the more complex it is to convincingly create and the more likely it is for a subject to disbelieve. An illusion of an ant is easier to create than the illusion of a dragon. This also applies to illusionary NPCs - a 15th level warrior is harder to create than a peasant with 3 hit poitns. Similarily, the more creatures included in the illusion, the harder it is to create; an illusion of 20 peasants would be more difficult than a single peasant."
Yes, most definitely! I've already mentioned that multiple independent illusions should be very difficult to do, and that bonuses should be applied to the save if the illusionary monster's HD exceeds the level of the caster.
Illusions of active creatures are more difficult to create than illusions of relatively inactive creatures. If the illusionary creature is executing a simple action, such as standing still, polishing its sword, or grazing in the grass, no special modifier for the subject's saving throw may be required. However, if the illusionary creature is executing a complex series of actions, such as singing a song while dancing and juggling, or attacking with two weapons while shouting a war cry, a modifier may be in order.
Creating the illusion of motion substantially increases the complexity of an illusion! However, victim movement does not usually (but may, depending on the spell) add to the complexity. For example, in my theory, since phantasmal force is an area-effecting spell, the caster must always maintain a 3-D image of the illusion, so victim movement does not cause any inherent added complexity for the caster (i.e. the caster does not have to compensate for a different viewing angle). Of course, if the victim leaves the spell range, the illusion no longer has any effect.
If the illusionary creature is a generic monster or NPC - that is, it is a "typical" orc or NPC warrior - there is no need for a special modifier for the subject'saving throw. However, if the illusionary creature is a specific, one-of-a-kind monster or NPC that the subjet is familiar with - such as a friend of the subject, or the subject's pet dog - the subject should receive a special modifier.
As I've already mentioned, attempting to make an illusion conform to reality is much more difficult than creating an illusion from imagination. This relates to comments above on general illusions being able to make something invisible (modeling the reality behind the invisible object).
As with the modifiers for inanimate objects, these factors are not necessarily cumulative. Only in exceptional cases would an illusion result in a saving throw modifier of more than +3.Examples:
- An illusion of a single orc standing still, polishing his sword. Saving throw modifier: 0. Nothing is particular difficult about creating an illusion of a single, low HD creature engaged in a relatively simple action.
- An illusion of king sluz, the famous orc ruler, brandishing his five-pronged trident, screeching a war cry, and leading a squad of six snarling orc soldiers. Saving throw modifier: +3. The modifier assumes the subject is familiar with King Sluz. Casting a believable illusion of a well-known NPC is always extremely difficult, particular when he is executing a complex action and is accompanied by other creatures.
The modifiers associated with these examples are reasonable, but should depend on caster level and the amount of experience with the types of illusion in question.
"Magic is common is most AD&D campaign worlds, so opponents are not necessarily suspicious of extraordinary effects that appear to defy natural laws. However, in certain instances, illusions that incorporate magical effects or special attacks will require saving throw modifiers. In general, a wizard cannot create excessively bizarre magical effects in his illusion without arousing the suspicion of the subject, adding a saving throw modifier of as much as +2.Examples:
- An illusion of a pile of sticks that abruptly bursts into flames. Saving throw modifier: 0. This is not an unusual magical effect.
- An illusion of a pile of sticks that bursts into green flames; the flames then change into a miniature replica of a purple castle with frog's legs; the castle tap dances, and finally turns intoa pumpkin with the subject's face before disappearing in a puff of pink smoke, and the stick are unburned. Saving throw modifier: +2. This is downright bizarre, easily justifying the higher modifier."
No! The bizarreness of this second illusion should make for a much higher saving throw adjustment. In my theory, practise is much more effective in improving the effects of illusion magic than it is in improving the effects of phantasm magic. Note that a substantial amount of phantasm magic would be necessary to convince a target that the example illusion was real (i.e. a real magical effect); no matter how good the sensory representation, the content is so unusual that the recipient would be completely justified in doubting their own senses.
In my theory, caster level does help in the phantasm component, so I would adjust the (initially quite high) modifier for the second example if the caster has very high level. Remember that the phantasm component would be responsible for actively convincing the target that what he sees is real (whereas the illusion component adjusts sensory perceptions and relies on a victims innate faith in these senses to do the convincing). In any event, a very wierd illusion will always be more likely to be detected than a more expected one, even if the sensory quality of the latter is poorer than the former.
"Illusions are seldom perfect, and wary subjects will always be alerted to an images' illusionary nature by its imperfections. For instance, if a wizard uses a spell such as phantasmal force to create an illusionary creature, the creature might lack one or more obvious sensory elements, such as sound, aroma, or body tempoerature, which can be a dead giveaway that the creature is only an illusion. In extreme cases, the subject's saving throw can be modified by as much as +4. If the wizard is using a better spell, such as improved phantasmal force, any sensory elements lacking in the illusion will not be as obvious, and the subject's saving throw rarely will be modified by more than +2.Examples:
- An illusion of a bee. Saving throw modifier: +1 (phantasmal force), 0 (improved phantasmal force). The illusionary bee won't buzz in a lower-level illusion, but it will in the higher-level spell.
- An illusion of a hissing fire lizard covered with filth. Saving throw modifier" +4 (phantasmal force), +1 (improved phantasmal force). The lower-level illusion won't be able to duplicate the lizards's hiss, body heat, or the smell of the filth. The higher-level spell will do a better job, but the modifier assumes that at least one of these elements is imperfect or missing."
I agree with this. Once again, TSR is being a little bit conservative, though. I can see certain attempts resulting in a modifier of more than +4.
"[Revealed Illusions]. As explained on page 84 of the Player's Handbook, if one subject successfully disbelieves an illusion and informs another subject of the illusion, the second subject receives a modifier to his saving throw. THe amount of this modifier depends on the reliability of the informant and the magnitude of the illusion. If the informant is unreliable and the illusion is formidable (for instance, an illusion of a deadly monster), the subject might ignore the informatn entirely; in this case, no special saving trhow modifier applies. If the informant is reliable (the subject's commander or friend), and the illusion is relatively minor (such as the image of a small fire), the subject's saving throw can be modified by as much as +4.
This dependence on the reliability of the source is a good point.
"[Intelligence]. It makes sense that a highly intelligent wizard would be able to create more effective illusions. It also makes sense that subjects with low intelligence would be less likely to disbelieve an illusion. Therefore, if the caster's Intelligence is exceptinoally high (18 or more), the subject's saving throw might be modified by -1. If the subject's Intelligence is excpetionally low (7 or less), his saving throw might be modified by -1. A -2 modifier is possible if both the caster's Intelligence is high and the subject's Intelligence is low."
In my theory, the difference in intelligence between subject and caster gives a percentage adjustment to the save (this will usually be negative).
"[The Illusion-Casting Subject]. Characters and creatures who can cast illusion themselves are much harder to fool. If the subject is an illusionist NPC or a creature with illusion casting abilities, he receives a +1 bonus to his saving throw."
In my theory, this depends on the relative levels. The difference in illusion-casting level between subject and caster is added to the base +5%. This can never go below 0%.
"[Summary of Modifiers]. For quick reference, Table 14 summarizes all of the situations described above, giving a range of possible modifiers to the subject's saving trhow. Again, these are suggestions only, not hard and fast rules, and the DM is free to tinker with them as he sees fit. These modifies are not necessarily cumulative; in fact, modifying any saving throw for disvelieving illusions by +4 is unusual, while modifying a throw by +6 (or more) should occur only in the most exceptional circumstances.
"First, an invisible creature is invisible to everyone, including itself. This is normally not a great difficulty; most creatures are aware of their own bodies and don't need to see their feet to walk, etc. However, when attempting detailed actions (e.g., picking a lock or threading a needle), invisible chracters have serious problems, suffering a -3 (or 15%) penalty to their chances of success. This does not apply to spell casting."
For one thing, this directly contradicts a statement made below. Second, invisiblity is an illusion, and the caster is well aware of this, and should thus have the benefits of having saved against it (unless he chooses not to, I suppose). This, however, brings up the interesting question of what it means to have an illusion that has no saving throw allowed (i.e. invisibility). Should there be different rules for specialized illusion spells than there are for general illusion spells, or should specialized spells simply effect the degree to which the general rules apply?
In my theory, illusion is illusion, and all illusions can be saved against in the right circumstances, although possibly at a high penalty. As well, in my theory, there is a difference between detecting the existence of an invisible creature (which usually requires an intelligence check) and disbelieving the illusion (which requires a saving throw, appropriately modified). Detecting an invisible creature means the individual knows that an invisible entity exists. Disbelieving means that the individual is able to ignore the illusion (i.e. actually see the supposed invisible creature) in the same way any disbelieved illusion can be ignored.
"Second, invisible characters are invisible to friend and foe. Unless care is exercised, it is easy for a visible person to blunder into an invisible companion. Imagine a fighter swinging his sword just as he realizes he doesn't know were good old invisible Merin is standing! The problem is even worse with a group of invisible characters - characters crash and tumble (invisibly) into one another, all because nobody can see anybody. It would be like having a oomful of people play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey all at once!"
However, anyone knowing that the spell is being cast on someone else will, if they succeed their save versus spell, disbelieve the illusion and be able to, at will, submit or not submit to the effect (i.e. not see or see the recipient of the spell).
"[Detecting Invisible Creatures]. Invisible creatures and things are not detectable by normal sight or by infravision. They do not create any significant distortion or haze pattern that can be noted. However, invisible creatures aren't completely undetectable. First, things still cling to them. Flour thrown into the air is useful for this purpose, although it can be easilty covered, washed off, or brushed away. Second, they do not leave invisible footprints. Again, flour on the floor is a good way to spot the movement of invisible creatures. The effects of specific environements are more subtle. Fog and smoke do not reveal invisible creatures. Smoke and fog are filled with swirls and eddies, preventing the creature from being detected. Invisible creatures completey submerged in liquids are also concealed; there is no hollow space or "air bubble" to reveal the creature's presence. At the surface, an invisible swimmer may be noticed by the observant as an unusual distortion of the waves."
I agree with most of this. However, if an individual is under-water, and blows air-bubbles, they will eventually become visible (depending on the particular spell - for invisibility they become visible immediately, since the spell only effects possessions in physical contact with the individual).
"Invisible creatures are not automatically silent. An invisible fighter in plate mail still clanks and rattles as he moves, a dead giveaway to most creatures. They still have scent, so creatures with keen noses can smell them. Indeed, blind, or nearly blind, creatures are unaffected by invisibility."
True, but I have generalized the invisibility spell to be used to cloak any one specific sensory perception. Thus, the same spell (or a close variant, if you wish) can be used to make an individual "smell-less".
A subtle detail exists here, as well. There are really two distinct sensory perceptions related to temperature. Infravision is a vision oriented sense, even though it detects heat sources, and is thus affected by the normal invisiblity spell. On the other hand, my version of invisibility allows a person to be "kinesthetically" invisible, so that they do not cause any physical sensation (thus, the person could touch someone without them feeling it). The modified spell, and its ramifications, are presented later.
"A detect magic shows only the presence of something magical without pinpointing it exactly. Thus, it cannot be used as a substitute for a detect invisible spell. Furthermore, while an actual light source may be invisible, the light emanating from it is not. This can reveal the location of an invisible character."
Bah, this is nonsense. TSR didn't think of using detect magic as a method of detecting invisiblity, and are thus making up rules just to cover previous oversights. That type of attitude will end up requiring a 3rd edition to remove accumulated garbage rules.
Of course a detect magic spell will reveal an invisible creature. The detect invisibility spell is still somewhat useful, since it has a longer duration and longer range. Both should be extended even more to justify the spell and its level, rather than making up a nonsense rule.
"When the DM thinks there is minor but sufficient cause for a creature to detect an invisible character, a saving throw vs. spell should be made (secretly if the DM is checking for a player character). A minor cause might be a strange odor, small noise, an object that disappeared when it shouldn't have, or a strange reaction from another person (who has been pushed, kicked, poked etc. by the invisible character). Such a saving throw would be allowed for each new event. A wolf would get a save when it deteted a strange scent, then shortly after when it heard a stick break, and finally a last chance when the character drew his sword from his scabbard. Furthermore, the acuity of the creature's senses and its general intelligence can increase or decrease the frequency of checks, at the DM's discretion.If the suspicious creature or character rolls a successful saving throw, he detects some small sign of the invisible foe's presence. He knows its general location, but not its exact position. He can attack it with a -4 penalty on his chance to hit. If the check fails, the creature or character is unaware of the invisible opponent until it does something else that might reveal its presence.
Of course, a revealing action (which could range from an attack to tripping over a pile of pots) immediately negates the need for a saving throw. In such cases, the character has a pretty good idea that something is not right and can take actions to deal with the situation."
I disagree with this method. I mentioned before that there are should be two separate issues associated with invisibility - detection and disbelief. Detection should be handled by intelligence roles, suitable modified for exceptional senses and situational modifiers. A person with a non-weapon proficiency slot for observation would certainly get a bonus on such a check.
On the other hand, disbelief is what should be handled by a saving throw, and would allow the individual saving to actually see the invisible entity (if they want to see the entity).
"Finally, even if an invisible character is suspected, this does not mean the character will be instantly attacked. The result, especially for less intelligent creatures, may only be increased caution. Having scented the intruder, the wolf bristles and growls, protecting its cubs. The rattlesnake will give its warning rattle. Even the orcs may only circle about warily, alert for an ambush."
Well, this depends on whether only detection occured, or both detection and disbelief.
index | theory | spells |