Use Your Illusion

[JaydeMoon]

It's a level 1 spell, therefore I see no compelling balance argument why you should fool any number of people above the statistical average of non-detection through game mechanics.

Fluff is rather correct though that the current "policy" on RP spells is DM arbitration.

Disguise self is a first level spell.

But figments and glamers cover other spells such as Minor Image, Major Image, Seemings, and others.

Seemings is a 5th level spell. (I understand that it's statistically more difficult to penetrate Seemings than Disguise Self so it's already worked in with the save DC, but my point is that the power of the spell is not inherently at question in this discussion)

What's the 'statistical average of non-detection through game mechanics'?

That's kind of what we're trying to determine here.

Statistically, if x amount of people study or interact with you, you have a z% chance of having the illusion seen through. That's fine, no one thinks it should be any different.

The question that is being discussed is the value of x when they are all non-critical NPCs in a scene where there are a total of y NPCs.

If you walk up to three guards and try to fast talk them into letting you into the keep, all three are critical NPCs and x = 3.

But if you walk into a tavern and only interact with a bouncer and the bartender, and there are 20 other NPCs in the place, minding their own business, then x = 2 + (y - w), where w = the ones who don't give you a second glance, or look at you longer than the time it takes to perform a standard action.

My argument is that it's quite possible that w=y in some circumstances and realistically w is usually just a few integers short of y, if at all. Zelk's argument is that w is probably many integers short of y.

Ultimately ALL those numbers are determined 'arbitrarily' by the DM, sure. But it would be nice if players could expect that DMs would not greatly differ in their application of the formulas, thereby creating vastly powerful usage of Disguise Self in one location, and worthless application in another.

Oh yeah. Fear and worship my Algebras!

[ThinkTank]

[Zelknolf]

My argument is that it's quite possible that w=y in some circumstances and realistically w is usually just a few integers short of y, if at all. Zelk's argument is that w is probably many integers short of y.

Again you missummarize my argument. I say that it doesn't need to be many for the illusion to be extremely likely to fail, that just about anywhere, a few people are going to give scrutiny, and that a DM who allows a low DC illusion to be a "Bullshit With Impunity" is a bad DM, granting too much power to low level spellcasters and demonstrating either a player favoritism or a class favoritism in his/her practices.

[psycho_leo]

My argument is that it's quite possible that w=y in some circumstances and realistically w is usually just a few integers short of y, if at all. Zelk's argument is that w is probably many integers short of y.

Again you missummarize my argument. I say that it doesn't need to be many for the illusion to be extremely likely to fail, that just about anywhere, a few people are going to give scrutiny, and that a DM who allows a low DC illusion to be a "Bullshit With Impunity" is a bad DM, granting too much power to low level spellcasters and demonstrating either a player favoritism or a class favoritism in his/her practices.

By the same token one could argue that a DM that gives saves to every NPC and their mother is a bad DM and either hates the class, the PC or the player, so we all should really agree on a middle ground, but meh.

[JaydeMoon]

Again you missummarize my argument. I say that it doesn't need to be many for the illusion to be extremely likely to fail, that just about anywhere, a few people are going to give scrutiny, and that a DM who allows a low DC illusion to be a "Bullshit With Impunity" is a bad DM, granting too much power to low level spellcasters and demonstrating either a player favoritism or a class favoritism in his/her practices.

Wait wait wait...

So you are saying that the place where you and I disagree is NOT simply the NUMBER of people who would scrutinize you in any given place?

I thought that's the crux of this debate?

We agreed that it doesn't take a LOT of people scrutinizing you for your illusion to fail, we agree that just about anywhere (you used the word few, lol) somebody is going to take note of you.

We also agree (or so I thought) that at least certain non-critical NPCs (as defined in this case as those NPCs you aren't directly trying to fool with your illusion, but are collaterally fooled by virtue of line-of-sight, audible range, etc) will likely get a chance to save. The bartender you order ale from, the fishmonger who's stand you browse while trying to look inconspicuous to the man your following, the paranoid rogue sizing you up as a mark, etc.

I will also venture to say that someone using such spells with impunity, without taking into account the furniture, is indeed acting with a leaning towards the users of illusion (probably in favor of PCs, whether they are employing or targetted by illusion - whether that is a bad thing is a different debate).

So... if all of that is the case and we see eye to eye on those levels... where is the point of contention?

The definition of 'few', the numbers to plug into (y - w). While the scope of my statement defining the debate may have been off (throwing around words like some and many), in essence is that not what we're going back and forth on?

[psycho_leo]

How about a persuade check?

[Zelknolf]

So... if all of that is the case and we see eye to eye on those levels... where is the point of contention?

The point of contention is just that you seem to be arguing for the successful use of this spell in trafficed public places, and I think the chances of that reasonably succeeding are incredibly remote. I'd likely find a way to strip the AoE and just roll a % to give 'em that 1 in 10 chance of going unnoticed with each crowded area, were I DMing, I suppose. I don't think that can be scripted with any kind of efficiency, though.

Maybe someone wants to write some kind of "How reasonable is ur disguise?" and "How long r u hangin' out by me?" scripts to do the will saves for disguise self differently; currently, it's spammy, yes, but I would point out that if the DM channel is getting spammed, the spell is probably being used somewhere it aught not be, and the chances of the PC being caught there are probably disproportionately high. I have another project at the moment, and I'll be looking for a way to make fear effects non-stupid when I finish that; I guess I can take a "different way to handle disguise self's scripts" onto the end of the list.

[JaydeMoon]

Well, I think it's great that you can even cast the spell mechanically.

That said, we may be actually pointing to a middle ground from opposite sides of the fence. I'm not saying that one's illusion spell WILL be successful in a crowded place or even should be successful more often than not, I'm just saying it's not as impossible as I felt you make it out to be, in your arguments above.

[Zelknolf]

I conceded that it's possible, but it sounds to me like people are using this spell to let drow wander the streets on Sembia and level 1 or 2 wizards commit crimes in public without having their faces memorable to anyone involved. Both are examples of complete bullshit uses of the spell.

Frankly, given the timing of this thread (Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:14 am) and the post in the SD rumor thread (Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:51 am), it sounds like a certain PC scampered through a famous crowded inn with this spell to mug someone in the back, and you wanted justification for letting her get away scott free and with no witnesses.

[FanaticusIncendi]

lol. I don't think anyone is looking for justification of anything, zelk. I think what's going on here is an honest attempt to understand how the damn thing works and why. If his point was to get away with letting someone slide, I highly doubt he would have even said anything. Maybe he had it coming, I don't know because I didn't read every single post in this thread, but unless you're just poking fun I find it a tad mean-spirited that you would go there.

Personally, I think it's absurd to think that every single NPC from the waitress to the beggar has seen through the illusory disguise, and lacking any concrete rule as to how I should deal with it, I as a DM I have gone with what I think. Game mechanics do wonky things all the time to things that are "supposed" to happen one way or another but don't. You compensate. I've been trying to figure out how to compensate for this particular spell for months, ever since a certain drow pc came to Sembia and the DM channel started getting endlessly spammed with SEMBIAN COMMONER HAS NOTICED THE ILLUSORY DISGUISE OF (nameless pc). I can tell you that all that spam is damn annoying, especially when you're not even running that PC. And frankly, I dealt with it by ignoring it, lest I get pulled away from what I was already engaged in and have to run some shite where a huge mob runs down the drow.

Like many gray issues in ALFA, there are conflicting opinions on how to deal with the issue. Person A says this, person B says that, argue argue argue yack yack yack with a couple funny pictures thrown in. Whatever. The way I deal with these gray issues that have controversy attached is this:

1) I'm going to run it the way I think it should be run.

2) When Admin steps up and puts an end to the argument and says This is how it shall be done I'll do it that way, whatever that way ends up being I really don't give a damn.

3) In the absence of admin making a ruling, if the issue affects my server and my HDM tells me This is how it shall be dealt with then I deal with it the way he tells me to. Again, I really don't care which way that is. He's the boss.

I play this game because I like the stories. I DM this game because I like to make the stories up, too. I have neither the time nor the inclination to figure out or quibble over every little nuance and technicality of every little thing. If that's what I spent my time on, then that's what I would be spending my time on, instead of playing and DMing. I rely on people more knowledgeable than myself about these technical issues to answer my questions when these things arise. When the answer is not forthcoming, is vague, or is debated by two or more people, I make my own decisions on the matter until there is some form of consensus and ruling on the matter.

I guess that's really all I have to say about that. Argue on, people. And can somebody let me know if any kind of concrete decision comes out of this? I can't be reading all your chatters.

[Zelknolf]

1) I'm going to run it the way I think it should be run.

This is why we argue; if that drow PC came anywhere I DMed and I got that spam, I'd ask the people I was DMing to wait five minutes while guards killed him/her, or at least made him/her run away. That would lead to a very frustrated player who didn't know why the fsck his/her character just got whacked by guys in uniforms (as opposed to one who knew he'd eventually get caught, who probably would have a plan for when it happened.)

[yavanion]

p173 ph

"creatures encountering an illusion usually do not recieve saving throws to recognice it as illusory untill they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. For example if a party encounters a section of a illusory floor, the character in the lead would reciecve a saving throw IF she stopped and studied the floor or if she probed the floor."

I think that wery much explains the dilemma, just walking through a room wont let you see through a illusion unless you actually stops and are actively looking for something odd, or "interacts" with it in such a fashion that your touch or other sensory input contradicts the illusion, a person with a illusory face, would be like the floor, him/her just walking through a room, would actully demand that someone in that room actually stopped what they were doing and spent some time "examening" the person under the illusion for something "odd", just giving a stranger a glanse, would not give a save in my opinion, or touched the illusion or the illusionary person did something that contradicted with its "guise"

[Brokenbone]

In the NWN1 environment, if NPCs within an X foot radius are "noticing illusory disguises", there may still be other things preventing notice, like no actual line of sight to an affected character.

- back may be turned
- may be hiding (I don't know if the "radius" thing is tied to perception or just distances)
- opaque objects such as walls or even full faced helms may break line of sight between illusion and spectator
- it may simply be dark out (variation on opaque objects)

I guess these "shouts" could be an alert for DMs to check out things if they'd like. If they think there's a good enough chance or line-of-sight for interaction/study, guess accept the "shouted" saving throw as having been valid.

Reactions though: if a poor Sembian Commoner notices "a translucent outline" of a little old lady overtop of a guy dripping in arms and armor, that Sembian Commoner might care to keep their mouth shut, thereby preserving both of their carefully conserved hitpoints. Hell, even if an undisguised walking armory gives a peasanty-level NPC the stink eye, 90% of the time credible DMing of that situation will see the meek citizen grin and bear it. Same goes for even a pair of say, fighter 4 NPCs employed as city guards. Unless the "illusion-toting individual" is clearly up to no good, accosting them is going to sometimes take someone fairly brave or certain of their ability to summon backup.

...

Oddly, "Glamered Armor", which is based on an appropriate magic arms & armor crafter using a Disguise Self spell, creates an illusion impenetrable to anything short of True Seeing or similar (maybe that includes Dispel Magic turning it off for 1d4 rounds, or other similar countermeasures). None of the normal rules about penetrating illusions seem to apply. Guess if you're 10th and have 2700gp, you get some relief from the normal set of saving throw rules. Study or interact with glamered armor all you want, it's not going to give up its secret without some major divination.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/ma ... m#glamered

[JaydeMoon]

Just as an FYI, Zelk, in the incident you are speaking of, there was no spam on the DM or shout channel that the illusion was pierced. So the question is an academic one, not one where I noticed a shit ton of NPCs 'seeing through an illusion', decided to ignore it, and then came here to 'justify' my DMing. As I possessed NPCs, I noticed I automatically attempted saves, and then it got me to thinking about who actually gets to save.

I imagine there is a radius thing going on, because I don't see how the PC would have managed to succeed if everyone in the tavern (something like 10-15 NPCs?) actually got to make a roll attempt... statistics say her chances would have been low. But then again, with probably only one or two exceptions, they probably all had abysmal save bonuses.

But even if I WAS trying to 'justify' my DMing, as it were, it would seem that, with one exception, everyone in this post that said anything of substance seems to agree that very few of the NPCs would even get an attempt to save in that situation. Some say it more eloquently than others, some with greater understanding of the rules, some with less...

Which brings me to another question:

Despite the fact that you might not agree with it, would you, DMing in ALFA, not allow as many save rolls for NPCs in ref. to illusions in order to maintain consistency for your players, considering that the majority of ALFA's DMs are inclined to do it that way?

Or will you do as FI and just "run it the way you think it should be run"?

Also, as an FYI, to anyone reading these posts, I can see the logic in Zelk's arguments. Her statements are not 'wrong', I don't consider them 'wrong'. They are her interpretation of how the rule works coupled with her understanding of societal attitudes in the genre. I disagree to the extent to which non-critical NPCs would be 'studying' random people passing through or by in any given area, but if I were playing in a place where Zelk's word is law (non-sarcastic statement, simply meaning that as a DM in her own pnp or PW game she is the final arbitrator), I'd happily abide by the method she would employ for dealing with illusions.

However, in ALFA, I'm interested to see what the general consensus is. Great, if it runs along my own lines of thinking or, if I'm grossly incorrect in my interpretation as discussed by the community, adjust my method of DMing.

[Zelknolf]

Unless the "illusion-toting individual" is clearly up to no good, accosting them is going to sometimes take someone fairly brave or certain of their ability to summon backup.

Who said the commoners were supposed to fight? Any reasonable commoner would get the guards, and if the guards don't think they can take him, they'd probably get more guards. I can't imagine those suckers would be keen on spending time in the brig for dereliction of duty.

Despite the fact that you might not agree with it, would you, DMing in ALFA, not allow as many save rolls for NPCs in ref. to illusions in order to maintain consistency for your players, considering that the majority of ALFA's DMs are inclined to do it that way?

If there was a ruling on it, sure. If not, I default to publications by WotC, as that's the next most credible source. (I usually call FRCS > SRD > WotC-published magazines) The SRD gives the dismissive "or interacted with in some fashion," so BB's linked article about using a standard action grants clarity, and that's how I'd do it for micro-managed situations. If it'sa fight, I'd give a save right away; if it's a conversation, I'd give a save after a round.

Past that, the DMG speaks about verismilitude and the suspension of disbelief, and in order to maintain such a feeling, the fact that commoners actually notice unfamiliar faces and that there are probably 4 who look longer than an instant seems an appropriate addition, and even an atmosphere-enhancing detail. (especially in environments like taverns -- I would bet that the bars you go to and don't get a second glance in never wrote any drinking songs, yet they exist in great numbers from the first beer halls until the industrial revolution)

Though, that should be combined with the notion that if I'd be asked to DM cheese to maintain consistency or if the norm became every level 1 wizard having disguise self and getting the effects of "Bullshit with Impunity," I'd likely just leave the community (or the server, depending on where it's the norm); that'd be a pretty strong sign that the styles are too mismatched for it to be worth the effort on my part.