Illusion Trap

[hcobb]

1. The scenario is that the wizard has a small head start and runs up to a bend in the corridor which is two hexes wide.
2. She casts Shadow in one of these hexes.
3. She casts an illusion of an octopus with three spears in the shadow hex
4. She casts Mage Sight on herself then runs off

A few turns later some guards reach this Illusion Trap and face the following:

1. If they shoot into the shadow from a distance at the unseen illusion their shots are at -6 DX vs a dodging target.
2. If they run up next to the shadow hex the Octopus counter is placed on the board, engages them to a stop, and does a triple set vs charge of adjDX 17 for 2d6 on each attack. This strikes first and the guards can't disbelieve because they moved more than one hex.
3. If they stop two hexes away they get triple jabbed and most likely fall over.

[TippetsTX]

You're using a loophole to create an effectively invisible illusion. That violates the intent of the spell.

I vote 'NO' to whole premise.

[phiwum]

An illusory octopus is hard to beat and one you can't see until it's too late is harder still.

The primary reason not to make every illusion an octopus is that the opponent is very likely to try to disbelieve. The shadow hex does a good job to mitigate that.

The tricky bit is the use of Mage Sight. If I cast Mage Sight on myself, do I get the effect when viewing through the eyes of the octopus? If there's a rule to that effect, I don't recall it.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

You're using a loophole to create an effectively invisible illusion. That violates the intent of the spell.

I vote 'NO' to whole premise.

It my be an undesirable outcome, but I don't see that there's any rule which forbids this strategy. I'd be loath to rule against a player who does this.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

1. If they shoot into the shadow from a distance at the unseen illusion their shots are at -6 DX vs a dodging target.

Compare the penalties for attacking from and into a Shadow hex given on ITL 21 with the ones described on ITL 105 and ITL 139. It looks to me like the info on p.105 needs to be added to the ITL errata, since it lists the penalty to attack into a Shadow hex as -6, whereas the others list -4.

[phiwum]

I'm shocked, Henry, that you didn't maximize the threat. Three spears?

An octopus has ST 20. He can wield a pike axe with one "hand", per raw, so the charge damage would be 3d+2 rather than 2d or 2d+1.

Mind you, the use of polearms set to receive a charge is one place I would put my foot down. The polearm should be visible outside the shadow hex, so at least I'd let the pursuers recognize the danger before they are engaged, whether it says so in the rules or not.

Of course, a pike axe or three sticking out of a shadow hex is likely to give the pursuers some pause, so if the wizard just wants to get away, this would do it.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It my be an undesirable outcome, but I don't see that there's any rule which forbids this strategy. I'd be loath to rule against a player who does this.

1) The rules explicitly forbid casting INVISIBILITY on top of an illusion. This sets a particular tone for the spell's intent IMO.
2) This use-case prevents all viewers from attempting to disbelieve the illusion (you can't disbelieve something you can't see). This circumvents a key balancing factor for illusions.
3) ITL pg 139 describes illusions as "...its effects are wholly mental, and are the product of the wizard’s mind and the minds of those who see the illusion." While I accept that not everyone may have the same strict interpretation of this language that I do, there's something inherently wrong with allowing 'unseen' illusions IMO.

I like clever thinking as much as the next guy, but Henry's proposal just seems like an attempt to abuse the rules.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm shocked, Henry, that you didn't maximize the threat. Three spears?

An octopus has ST 20. He can wield a pike axe with one "hand", per raw, so the charge damage would be 3d+2 rather than 2d or 2d+1.

The spears are each being used as 1-handed. Thus three of them. So, if you want a pike axe, it would replace two spears. So, one pike axe and one spear will give you less damage over all during the charge, unless the target has armor. After the charge, the pike and spear is better than the three spears. Either has its advantages.

[Axly Suregrip]

I also would allow it.

Using shadow to put other creation spells into it is a key function of this spell.

A wizard can create an illusion before others enter a room. Someone else seeing the illusion is not a prerequisite.

They will become aware of its presence in the shadow hex as soon as they are adjacent to it, just as if it was a real person/octopus in the shadow. Once aware, they may disbelieve, even if all they see is tentacles wrapped around spears jabbing/attacking out.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

The spears are each being used as 1-handed. Thus three of them. So, if you want a pike axe, it would replace two spears. So, one pike axe and one spear will give you less damage over all during the charge, unless the target has armor. After the charge, the pike and spear is better than the three spears. Either has its advantages.

If your ST is 3 higher than the ST required to wield a 2-handed weapon, it can be wielded with one-hand.