Cast out of HTH

[phiwum]

Yes, the inconsistencies of illusion are just a part of the game. Like the inconsistencies in the rules dealing with HTH, but illusions are fun and perplexing instead of just perplexing.

[Steve Plambeck]

And here I've been following the thread thinking up house rules that could iron out some of the inconsistencies, only to see now how that could spoil the fun! Well, not to let all that contemplation go to waste:

INANIMATE ILLUSIONS - a category split off from "living" animate ones. Illusions of fire and walls, weapons, etc would fall under this heading. Treat them just like Images, insubstantial and unusable, with the exception they don't disappear when touched, but continue to lie or stand where they were placed, which could be useful in its own way. Everyone sees them, but they never interact with the environment. You walk into an Image of a wall, you go through it and it disappears. You walk into an Illusion of a wall, you go through it without feeling a thing, but it still appears to be there (possibly hiding an opening in a larger wall). You walk into a wall created ("summoned") by the Wall spell, or a real wall, you break your nose! An Illusion of fire only works like an Image of fire, doesn't burn anything, but won't disappear when touched, only when disbelieved.

DETACHED ILLUSIONS - when a "living" animate Illusion drops, throws, or shoots anything, that thing becomes an INANIMATE ILLUSION unto itself, as per the rule from above, except the animate Illusion that dropped it can pick it up again and use it if given the chance. If someone else tries to pick it up their hand just goes through it, but at least they now know the figure that dropped it actually is an Illusion. An illusory arrow goes through a target without hurting them, but the target may just think it was a near miss unless someone notices otherwise - you might flee a barrage of arrows before realizing no one is getting hurt. (The GM would still be rolling "to hit", concealing the results, and saying "Dang, I missed again!")

Lastly ANIMATE ILLUSIONS of animals and creatures would be fully substantial and interact with their environments just like the real thing, interacting with anything they touch, pick up, or hit just as if they were real. Even slimes. It's just that any weapons they came with are only substantial when in their own hands.

The rules would be much more internally consistent, but if it spoils your fun it would be better to just keep the original inconsistencies! :)

[hcobb]

If the only spells you know are Aid and Illusion can you burn a green slime?

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

An Illusion of fire only works like an Image of fire, doesn't burn anything, but won't disappear when touched, only when disbelieved.

If an illusory fire is cast into a dark room, does it illuminate the area?

[phiwum]

Steve, I rather like the INANIMATE ILLUSION as an IQ 9 or 10 spell. It's more a sticky form of Image as I see it and can be dropped in place without the goal of making illusions more consistent.

One issue with replacing the wild and woolly Illusion spell with these three is, of course, that you've made Illusion a lot more expensive. Whether that's a feature or a problem depends on taste. Or did you intend this as a single spell with three different effects?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

If the only spells you know are Aid and Illusion can you burn a green slime?

It's the same question you asked earlier in another thread, really.

There are two inconsistent rules.

(1) An IQ 0 or 1 being "cannot see the illusion and cannot affect or be affected by it." (ITL 138, last sentence)

(2) "An illusion of fire, wall, or shadow will behave just like the real thing until it vanishes or is disbelieved." (ITL 139, "Illusions of Inanimate Objects", applies to Magical Ropes and hand-held weapons as well.)

A GM has to decide which of these two rules take precedence. I tend to prefer (1), but it's only a matter of taste, not reason.

I've no idea why you think that knowing Aid is relevant since your question is simply "Can an illusory fire harm a slime?" Whether you know two spells or whether it's an illusion of a flaming sword or of fire seems inconsequential and distracting. It's these two sentences in the text that are at issue.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by hcobb

If the only spells you know are Aid and Illusion can you burn a green slime?

It's a riddle and I thiiiiink I know the answer.

If we go by RAW, then of course-- illusions of fire are actual fire that can be disbelieved. With IQ 0 the slime is doomed. Hurray

But, if we assume the Minds Not Matter version of illusion, illusions have only psychic effects. A slime with IQ 0 can't have psychic effects, it's missing its psyche. Therefore the wizard must first Aid the slime to have greater IQ. Why not say IQ 8? Then create the illusory fire in the hex of World's Smartest Slime. Ignorance was bliss. Hurray

PS extended vanity project of a high-goblin.
Step 1. Require the minions to maintain Aid on a slime to IQ 12. This will be expensive as it must go on 24 hrs day, 365 days a year, indefinitely
Step 2. Over the years. teach the slime the Magic Rainstorm spell
Step 3. Cast fire on World's Smartest Slime and watch it extinguish it with its own Magic Rainstorm!
Step 4. ?
Step 5. Profit!

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by RobW

PS extended vanity project of a high-goblin.
Step 1. Require the minions to maintain Aid on a slime to IQ 12. This will be expensive as it must go on 24 hrs day, 365 days a year, indefinitely
Step 2. Over the years. teach the slime the Magic Rainstorm spell
Step 3. Cast fire on World's Smartest Slime and watch it extinguish it with its own Magic Rainstorm!
Step 4. ?
Step 5. Profit!

Brilliant. Never thought of adding IQ to a mindless critter and, really, I wouldn't allow it, but it's quite clever.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

If an illusory fire is cast into a dark room, does it illuminate the area?

I'd say yes, for no particular reason other than simplicity's sake. And for a bit of consistency, as no other illusion (or image for that matter) gives itself away as being unreal just by its appearance.

But what really makes my head hurt is wondering how the illusion of a Shadow is supposed to differ from an actual Shadow (other than its susceptibility to disbelief). I just might lose some sleep worrying over that one -- thanks SJ!

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Steve, I rather like the INANIMATE ILLUSION as an IQ 9 or 10 spell. It's more a sticky form of Image as I see it and can be dropped in place without the goal of making illusions more consistent.

One issue with replacing the wild and woolly Illusion spell with these three is, of course, that you've made Illusion a lot more expensive. Whether that's a feature or a problem depends on taste. Or did you intend this as a single spell with three different effects?

Oh heavens no, I wasn't thinking of changing the actual spells at all! Just trying to excise the inconsistencies from Creation spells, not rewrite them. In fact I very much like them just the way they are, and think their IQ levels and ST costs are very well balanced as is.

It's just the abilities and effects of Illusions I was reclassifying to end some of the problems and pitfalls of multiple interpretations. The (1-hex) Illusion Spell should still create a 1-hex figure or object, exactly as it does now, and etc. for the other sizes.

I want to re-explain what I meant for my tweak of animate Illusions. I could have put my proposal much more simply: treat animate Illusions exactly the same as Summoned creatures, except that they can be disbelieved and of course they cost less ST to conjure up. This would end any confusion with the environmental interactions (picking up objects, lifting things, being "split" if they drop, fire or throw their own weapons, being invisible to low IQ critters, etc etc).

Separately I proposed tweaks for any Illusion classified as an inanimate object, not very different from the RAW, and drag illusions of walls, fire and shadow under that heading, so all inanimate illusions fall under a single set of guidelines. Again though the original spells would still be used to cast these Illusions just as before.

For Illusions of creatures for which there are existing "Summon" spells to appear more consistent with the existing rules regarding Illusions of inanimate objects, I'd also rename four spells. These would be changes in name only to make the intended rules somewhat more transparent. I'd change "Fire" to "Summon Fire", "Shadow" to "Summon Shadow", "Create Wall" to "Summon Wall", and "Rope" to "Summon Rope". So just as deciding between casting "Summon Wolf" or "Illusion (of a wolf)", you could say a wizard is deciding between casting "Summon Wall" or "Illusion (of a wall)". Just so the terminology would stay the same whether you're thinking/talking about animate Illusions or inanimate Illusions.

Now anyone might argue that putting the word "Summon" in front of Fire, Wall or Shadow might lead to confusion; the more familiar cases (Summon Wolf, Summon Bear, Summon Giant, etc.) have recurring ST costs per turn, whereas the create Fire, Wall, Shadow and Rope spells do not. All of the latter you get for a fixed duration of 12 turns for a single ST payment. Ah, but we mustn't overlook, there are other Creation spells, some called "Summon" and some not, that also don't have a per turn ST cost: Summon Lesser Demon, Summon Demon, Rope, and Giant Rope (and maybe more but those came to mind).

So everyone already has to get used to the idea the word "Summon" in front of something has no bearing on whether there's going to be a per turn ST cost. So I'd start using the term "Summon" in front of anything that's "real" when it's called up.

SUMMONed = the real thing is conjured up, and can't be disbelieved
IMAGE = an insubstantial mirage is conjured up, can be dispelled with just a touch, and can be disbelieved
ILLUSION = a semi-substantial thing is conjured up, can not be dispelled with a touch, but it can be disbelieved. If it's an inanimate thing, it's less substantial, working like an Image, but an Image that doesn't go away from just a touch. If it's an animate creature, it's more substantial, works just like a Summoned creature, but it can still be disbelieved.

What I like about this way of looking at it is that it forms a spectrum, with Images weak, Summoning strong, and Illusions falling in the middle and having some of the advantages and some of the weaknesses of both.

How much does all this depart from RAW? Illusions of inanimate objects, including walls and fire, no longer have any substance; the illusion of a weapon can only be used by the illusion of the creature that brought it. And illusions of creatures can kill slimes and pick up and use solid objects.

At least to my thinking, that's a fairly minor number of changes to tolerate to gain internally consistent creation spell rules.