Illusions as scouts?

[Chris Rice]

I allow Illusions to be used as scouts in that they can draw enemy fire and attacks (since the enemy may think the illusion is real.) However, they don't trigger traps, fall into pits etc and I don't allow the Wizard to see through the Illusions eyes.

[larsdangly]

It is pretty clear from the extended discussion of images and illusions on p. 138-139 that Steve wasn't trying to present a water-tight exclusive list of everything they could and couldn't be and do. So it is understandable, and probably a good thing, that every table will have its own interpretation. But if you don't let wizards see through an illusion's eyes in at least some circumstances you are removing a capability that is specifically noted on p. 139. So, that's more like a house rule than an interpretation.

The question in my mind is, if you are going to play RAW (wizards can 'see' and use perception related talents through an illusion's eyes), then what conditions apply? None are specified, so the loosest interpretation is that wherever the illusion is, you (the caster) are perceiving things from its perspective. I don't think there is a logical argument that lets you say clearly how this should or shouldn't be limited by distance, whether or not you've already seen what the illusion is setting, whether you can see the illusion at that moment, etc. It's a magic spell, and letting it provide remote sensory information isn't wildly out of line with the powers of other magic spells with similar difficulty and cost. So why not? But of course if you want to restrict the playing field for wizards for some reason the GM always has the right to make a narrower table ruling. Personally, I have a 'live and let live' approach to this sort of thing. If a player comes up with a creative use for a spell that doesn't violate something clear in the rules, I'd rather give the the reins and see where they go with it rather than shut it down.

[Chris Rice]

I'm happy to play largely RAW, but I'm not happy to be a slave to any set of rules, that's not what RPGs are about to my mind.

Illusions in TFT are a good example of this as they are a common and highly useful spell but with potentially complex interpretations. I don't want them to be a scout spell in the games I GM so I make that clear from the outset to any player that has them.

I also thought that the idea that a figure killed by an illusion would be found "hacked to death in their armour" made no sense so I ignored that too. In my games, victims of illusion are found dead in their armour because "they believe they have been killed" and their heart stops.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

It is pretty clear from the extended discussion of images and illusions on p. 138-139 that Steve wasn't trying to present a water-tight exclusive list of everything they could and couldn't be and do. So it is understandable, and probably a good thing, that every table will have its own interpretation.

Yes. One thing I rather like about GMs coming up with their own details of how spells work, is that then players of characters who aren't familiar with those spells, won't completely understand exactly how the spells work. That means non-wizard players get to experience imperfect knowledge of magic, instead of strangely already knowing the detailed mechanics of something their PCs don't really know about.

Originally Posted by larsdangly

But if you don't let wizards see through an illusion's eyes in at least some circumstances you are removing a capability that is specifically noted on p. 139. So, that's more like a house rule than an interpretation.

Maybe. Though I think the rule about seeing through eyes was written mainly with combat situations, and simplicity of play, in mind, and probably did not really consider or playtest the implications of illusion scouts used by clever players outside combat, as some of us have experienced. So I think of it more as filling in what the rules don't really cover.

But more importantly, having experienced play with and without unlimited scouting by illusions, I think there's a major campaign style choice for GMs to consider. I.e., if wizards can make illusions of things like small birds or bugs and then get amazing views of the whole area, or see what's on the other side of doors, or up difficult cliffs or inside palaces or guild hall executive offices, and have to consider that foes, bandits, spies etc may do so as well, that's a very different world situation from one where that's difficult or impossible.

And if illusionary scouting is easy, then a GM may want to consider what countermeasures might be taken by the world's various rulers, guild halls, villains, treasuries, etc. If any secrets are to be kept from illusionists, there may need to be some better countermeasures invented than having to have someone who can periodically cast Detect Magic and Dispel Illusion all day, and/or surrounding all locations you want to protect in hundreds or thousands of megahex-sized pentagrams.

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The question in my mind is, if you are going to play RAW (wizards can 'see' and use perception related talents through an illusion's eyes), then what conditions apply?

I already described mine a few posts above. I've tried a number of different illusion theories, and I tend to like ones where illusions are a shared phenomenon of the illusionist's imagination and the minds of the people who perceive it. But that means to gain information not in the illusionist's mind, the audience has to engage the illusion, and then the illusion can see what the audience who noticed it thinks/remembers of their surroundings. It's like the illusionist conjures a dream which is the situation he sees/knows, plus some conjured illusion. Other people who take notice of the illusion have their perceptions unknowingly join that shared dream, and they can add their own perceptions and ideas about the immediate situation to that shared dream. This has the interesting drawback for spying that in order to be able to see and hear what your audience sees and hears, you need them to notice your illusion, so you can't just have your illusion be a bug they don't even notice if you want to gain their perceptions.

[TippetsTX]

Unlike the "tree falling in the forest", i also prefer the idea that an illusion cannot exist in an observational vacuum.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Probably RAW, yeah you can use illusions as scouts.

However, I have it that you can't really learn things you didn't already know from an illusion unless someone else notices your illusion, in which case you could perceive things that those people perceive.

So the illusion of a mosquito would need to be noticed by someone, and then you could see things that that person knew about and that the mosquito could see.

I like this limitation because
*snip*
4) It makes illusion scouting situations more interesting to me, because it means you actually need to get the attention of someone you want to spy on, which is an interesting trade-off that can lead to interesting situations.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I already described mine a few posts above. I've tried a number of different illusion theories, and I tend to like ones where illusions are a shared phenomenon of the illusionist's imagination and the minds of the people who perceive it. But that means to gain information not in the illusionist's mind, the audience has to engage the illusion, and then the illusion can see what the audience who noticed it thinks/remembers of their surroundings. It's like the illusionist conjures a dream which is the situation he sees/knows, plus some conjured illusion. Other people who take notice of the illusion have their perceptions unknowingly join that shared dream, and they can add their own perceptions and ideas about the immediate situation to that shared dream. This has the interesting drawback for spying that in order to be able to see and hear what your audience sees and hears, you need them to notice your illusion, so you can't just have your illusion be a bug they don't even notice if you want to gain their perceptions.

Just a couple of questions.
a) Does the someone need to be at least IQ7 or humanoid or even sentient?
b) If you sent an illusion around the corner to see if there was a guard dog, which might be IQ 6, would that be enough to trigger the trap (make the dog bark?)
c) If the Fly Illusion goes around a corner and is not in LOS of the caster, does it fly blind until someone notices it, then full multi-faceted eye vision kicks in?
d) If yes on "c", then you would at least know that something is in that hallway.

[warhorse11h]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

Just a couple of questions.
a) Does the someone need to be at least IQ7 or humanoid or even sentient?
b) If you sent an illusion around the corner to see if there was a guard dog, which might be IQ 6, would that be enough to trigger the trap (make the dog bark?)
c) If the Fly Illusion goes around a corner and is not in LOS of the caster, does it fly blind until someone notices it, then full multi-faceted eye vision kicks in?
d) If yes on "c", then you would at least know that something is in that hallway.

I realize that I am not the one this was directed to, but I'll take a whack at an answer. You can decide if it's worth reading.

a above. No, it would not have to be IQ 7, but it can't be IQ 0 or 1. The descriptive passages in ITL LE state that an illusion is not perfect at springing ambushes as intelligent creatures would attack unless they disbelieve first and that animals would attack unless they accidentally disbelieve. Creatures of 0 or 1 IQ can't sense an illusion and so wouldn't react to it.

b above. Yes, the dog could be made to bark, provided the illusion is something that is big enough to attract its attention or be perceived as a threat. A fly might not get the job done.

c and d above. That's a tough one. ITL LE specifies that the illusion behaves as if the world is exactly as the creator of the illusion believes it is. So if the illusion goes around a corner into a hallway that the creator hasn't seen before, it might appear as just a hallway, without any of its details or it might appear as a blank space. There is a reference to how the illusion would react to a trap the creator was unaware of, in short it would pass by, through or over it without sensing it or setting it off. If however, someone is in the hallway, the text also indicates that the person viewing the illusion also feeds it (pg 138). So again, if they note the illusion and interact with it, then it would be possible to see through its eyes, but what it could sense might be subject to interpretation.

[hcobb]

Are illusions seen by persons the caster is unaware of?

[zot]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Interesting, but I can't tell from this aside whether or not you both agree with the fundamental premise that a wizard can create an illusion and then send it to and fro to observe his or her surroundings. In particular, the comment about the bat illusion not actually relaying information gathered by sonar suggests you don't think an illusion can show you something you haven't seen.

EDIT: I replied before catching up with this thread and didn't see your comment about pages 138-139 :)

Yes, I believe the rules on illusions are quite clear: the wizard sees out of the illusion's "eyes" just as with a summoned creature. The rules also characterize illusions as a "knot of forces" in the disbelief rules on page 138 and page 139 says that illusionary fire actually burns real things and illusionary weapons actually damage physical things:

"Mages theorize this is true because these few inanimate objects are so often seen as illusions that they have somehow acquired extra power."

So Illusions in TFT are more than just mental, they're quasi-physical objective manifestations, shaped by the observers.

I seem to remember a ruling from Steve about wizards using senses from a creation that the wizard didn't have, like sonar, but I don't remember what he said about it :(.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Probably RAW, yeah you can use illusions as scouts.

However, I have it that you can't really learn things you didn't already know from an illusion unless someone else notices your illusion, in which case you could perceive things that those people perceive.

So the illusion of a mosquito would need to be noticed by someone, and then you could see things that that person knew about and that the mosquito could see.

What about an image of a mosquito? Images are not connected with belief at all...