Can Phantasmal Force knock/hold someone prone?

[BiPolar]

If I were to cast Phantasmal Force, could the phantasm be something like spiked chains rising out of the ground, gripping each limb and dragging the enemy down? It would then hold him and possibly hurt him until he passes an investigation check (if it fails the first intelligence save?)

[Sir cryosin]

If I were to cast Phantasmal Force, could the phantasm be something like spiked chains rising out of the ground, gripping each limb and dragging the enemy down? It would then hold him and possibly hurt him until he passes an investigation check (if it fails the first intelligence save?)

I would rule yes that he is stuck in place but I don't know if I would allow damage. Illusions are so dm dependent so it's a question for your DM

[famousringo]

If I were to cast Phantasmal Force, could the phantasm be something like spiked chains rising out of the ground, gripping each limb and dragging the enemy down? It would then hold him and possibly hurt him until he passes an investigation check (if it fails the first intelligence save?)

There's a fair amount of DM adjudication in terms of how "real" Phantasmal Force can be. A DM might let you get away with this.

Or, since the illusion can't apply actual force, it can be argued the target can "fight" the chains to keep his footing and win every time. He might even be able to run right out of the area of effect, and rationalize that he forced his way out of the chains by sheer strength.

IMO, a better way is to design an illusion that makes the target want to behave as you desire. Put him in a spiked cage with pendulous blades swinging down at him and see how quickly he falls prone. The less he interacts with the illusion, the less likely he is to discover it's not real.

[Pex]

I would rule yes that he is stuck in place but I don't know if I would allow damage. Illusions are so dm dependent so it's a question for your DM

Phantasmal Force specifically says it can cause real damage (1d6) if the illusion accounts for a cause.

[RickAllison]

As a DM, I've always enjoyed the idea of using Phantasmal Force to make the person think they are holding a loved one safe from imminent doom by a burning chain. You get the damage from the chain, you get emotional trauma, and you keep them immobilized as the whirring blades threaten to eviscerate someone beloved.

[BiPolar]

There's a fair amount of DM adjudication in terms of how "real" Phantasmal Force can be. A DM might let you get away with this.

Or, since the illusion can't apply actual force, it can be argued the target can "fight" the chains to keep his footing and win every time. He might even be able to run right out of the area of effect, and rationalize that he forced his way out of the chains by sheer strength.

IMO, a better way is to design an illusion that makes the target want to behave as you desire. Put him in a spiked cage with pendulous blades swinging down at him and see how quickly he falls prone. The less he interacts with the illusion, the less likely he is to discover it's not real.

Right, that's why i was going with something that would require a strenght check to break (chains) and not an investigation check to discover it's an illusion. He'll get the damage from the spikes (or red-hot chains if we want to go with that flavor). I just wasn't sure I could have the enemy imagine he was dragged down and have that happen.

[DaKiwiMonsta]

There's a fair amount of DM adjudication in terms of how "real" Phantasmal Force can be. A DM might let you get away with this.

Or, since the illusion can't apply actual force, it can be argued the target can "fight" the chains to keep his footing and win every time. He might even be able to run right out of the area of effect, and rationalize that he forced his way out of the chains by sheer strength.

IMO, a better way is to design an illusion that makes the target want to behave as you desire. Put him in a spiked cage with pendulous blades swinging down at him and see how quickly he falls prone. The less he interacts with the illusion, the less likely he is to discover it's not real.

I agree with your idea for if the target creature is still standing, but if they were already prone (say by creating an illusion that makes them jump to the ground) then I would think that if they thought that a net were on top of them, then they would just accept the fact that they were trapped prone. If you wanted to do damage then sure, red hot chains works.

[SharkForce]

Right, that's why i was going with something that would require a strenght check to break (chains) and not an investigation check to discover it's an illusion. He'll get the damage from the spikes (or red-hot chains if we want to go with that flavor). I just wasn't sure I could have the enemy imagine he was dragged down and have that happen.

phantasmal force is fairly poorly defined. what it really needs to make it clear is for the example in the spell to be an example of something where the target acts in a way the illusion should make impossible (eg can you walk through a wall that is made by phantasmal force), rather than an example where the environment causes the target to do something the illusion should make impossible (falling through a bridge that is only an illusion).

and unfortunately, we're only very slightly more likely to ever get clarification on this question than the chances of me winning the lottery (note: i do not buy lottery tickets). sage advice is pretty much just reading what's in the manual. the errata didn't really clear up much of note. tweets generally get contradicted by other tweets on a regular basis.

so, it pretty much works however your DM thinks it works. in 2nd AD&D, the target would have been unable to move themselves past an illusion of a wall, even if they were trying to walk through an illusion of a wall, unless they successfully disbelieve (roughly equivalent to the investigation check in 5e). in 5e? i have no idea whatsoever. your guess is as good as anyone's.

[BiPolar]

I agree with your idea for if the target creature is still standing, but if they were already prone (say by creating an illusion that makes them jump to the ground) then I would think that if they thought that a net were on top of them, then they would just accept the fact that they were trapped prone. If you wanted to do damage then sure, red hot chains works.

Except that the spell states:
While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats
the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes
any illogical outcomes from interacting with the
phantasm. For example, a target attempting to walk
across a phantasmal bridge that spans a chasm falls
once it steps onto the bridge. If the target survives the
fall, it still believes that the bridge exists and comes up
with some other explanation for its fall—it was pushed,
it slipped, or a strong wind might have knocked it off.

So the only way to actually escape the proposed illusion is to investigate it and make that check. Otherwise, whatever else they do fails and they justify that failure :)

[DaKiwiMonsta]

So the only way to actually escape the proposed illusion is to investigate it and make that check. Otherwise, whatever else they do fails and they justify that failure :)

Of course, yes. My mistake. Sorry!

[SharkForce]

Except that the spell states:

So the only way to actually escape the proposed illusion is to investigate it and make that check. Otherwise, whatever else they do fails and they justify that failure :)

unfortunately, it is not that clear. they will rationalize any illogical outcomes, but it is entirely possible for them to simply run from the effect and rationalize that they burst throught it and still be completely in line with how the spell is described. it doesn't say they will (or won't) fail, so it's basically just whatever your DM feels like. if the DM thinks you can't escape the chains and only external forces can make you leave (at which point you'll rationalize how you escaped), that's how it works. if the DM thinks you just walk away and rationalize that the chains slipped off, then that's how it works, too.

perhaps even more unfortunately, the illusion is tied to a single location. so those chains? can't move with the target if the target does leave the area.

like i said, phantasmal force is really unclear as to how exactly it works.

[BiPolar]

unfortunately, it is not that clear. they will rationalize any illogical outcomes, but it is entirely possible for them to simply run from the effect and rationalize that they burst throught it and still be completely in line with how the spell is described. it doesn't say they will (or won't) fail, so it's basically just whatever your DM feels like. if the DM thinks you can't escape the chains and only external forces can make you leave (at which point you'll rationalize how you escaped), that's how it works. if the DM thinks you just walk away and rationalize that the chains slipped off, then that's how it works, too.

perhaps even more unfortunately, the illusion is tied to a single location. so those chains? can't move with the target if the target does leave the area.

like i said, phantasmal force is really unclear as to how exactly it works.

Except they can't run if they believe they are held. Someone could potentially drag them away and they'd rationalize how that worked, but it seems pretty clear that they can't do anything that doesn't seem possible. If it is real to them, they simply wouldn't be able to get up and walk away. Their mind has convinced them they are held.

Spell quote:

While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats
the phantasm as if it were real.

And speaking of poorly worded, it doesn't say that the spell is limited to a single location, only that it must fit in a 10 foot cube. I could say that a bag of killer bees appeared over his head, and if he runs around, it's still on his head (maybe?). The spell itself isn't actually visible, so I don't see why it would occupy a physical space. It's all in the target's mind.

[MaxWilson]

unfortunately, it is not that clear. they will rationalize any illogical outcomes, but it is entirely possible for them to simply run from the effect and rationalize that they burst throught it and still be completely in line with how the spell is described. it doesn't say they will (or won't) fail, so it's basically just whatever your DM feels like. if the DM thinks you can't escape the chains and only external forces can make you leave (at which point you'll rationalize how you escaped), that's how it works. if the DM thinks you just walk away and rationalize that the chains slipped off, then that's how it works, too.

Coincidentally, that's exactly how all the rest of the roleplaying in 5E works too. If the DM thinks your guards would run from a dragon, then they do. It doesn't matter if it's an illusionary dragon or a real dragon--the exact same rules apply in both cases.

[SharkForce]

they can treat it as real while struggling to try and get out of it. which, since they are not actually in any way restricted, and they will be throwing their full force into it presumably, could very easily lead to them moving, and in fairly short order moving away from the illusion.

as to not saying it's restricted to a single location, it doesn't have to, any more than magic missile needs to say that you can't hit multiple creatures with the same effect. spells that let you move their effect around say so. phantasmal force doesn't. there is also the note that the phantasm of a creature or hazard can harm the target *if they're near it*. not if it goes to them. you get a 10 foot cube to place your illusion in, and that's it, as written.

could the spell work as you described? sure, it definitely could. but it isn't clear. it doesn't really tell you exactly how it works, it just has some very unspecific descriptions of the spell's effect and then leaves you to figure out what that means when you try to actually use the spell.

like i said, that could have easily been resolved by having the example in the spell description be a wall instead of a bridge; if the example had the person unable to pass through the wall, we'd know that you could use illusionary chains that would hold them quite effectively, and if they're able to pass through the wall, we'd know that illusionary chains are pretty much useless and pointless. instead, we have to guess. your guess is certainly as good as mine, but it creates a rather large problem when you ask for a definitive answer regarding what exactly the spell can do, because all we can really offer is "maybe it works like this".


Coincidentally, that's exactly how all the rest of the roleplaying in 5E works too. If the DM thinks your guards would run from a dragon, then they do. It doesn't matter if it's an illusionary dragon or a real dragon--the exact same rules apply in both cases.

this isn't the DM deciding what NPCs will attempt to do, this is the DM deciding what a spell is capable of doing. not the same thing at all. can the spell effectively restrain someone? we don't know. in 2nd (AD&D) edition, it would be able to. in 5th edition, there's no hard rule.

[Ninja_Prawn]

they can treat it as real while struggling to try and get out of it. which, since they are not actually in any way restricted, and they will be throwing their full force into it presumably, could very easily lead to them moving, and in fairly short order moving away from the illusion.

That's my reading of it. To successfully restrain someone with a direct application of Phantasmal Force, you pretty much need to convince them not to struggle against the bonds.

Ultimately, the DM has to judge every illusion on a case-by-case and even round-by-round basis, because the behaviour of monsters and NPCs depends not just on the illusion as they perceive it, but also everything else going on around them.

[BiPolar]

That's my reading of it. To successfully restrain someone with a direct application of Phantasmal Force, you pretty much need to convince them not to struggle against the bonds.

Ultimately, the DM has to judge every illusion on a case-by-case and even round-by-round basis, because the behaviour of monsters and NPCs depends not just on the illusion as they perceive it, but also everything else going on around them.

That is an excellent point. So I need to think of something where someone would be held, but not in a way that they'd WANT to struggle. Add the sound of harpy song? :D

[SharkForce]

That is an excellent point. So I need to think of something where someone would be held, but not in a way that they'd WANT to struggle. Add the sound of harpy song? :D

well, maybe. there's also room to read it the other way.

that's the problem. and that's why it works the way your DM thinks it works. the spell itself is not definitive enough to make an objective decision backed by hard evidence or logic. it could work either way; maybe it keeps them from moving because they're so convinced they can't move that their mind won't let them move, maybe they can move just fine and their mind will rationalize the movement somehow or other. we may never know, because there isn't a reliable source of information we can consult; sage advice won't touch it. the errata didn't address it. tweets tend to contradict other tweets almost as often as they confirm other tweets, and a significant portion of the time the tweet answers a question that was never asked anyways, as far as i can tell.

[jas61292]

This is one topic I have seen mentioned a lot, with people confused on how it should work. I personally think is very straight forward, but the reason it comes up so much is that people either don't understand or misuse the word "rationalizes." A lot of people seem to take this as meaning that the target will interpret the illusions effects in a way that are advantageous to the caster, but that is not what that word means. Rather, it simply means that they will find a way to explain it away.

Furthermore, by the text of the spell, the only thing the target ever rationalizes is an illogical occurrence. It doesn't warp its perception of reality (outside the illusion) to better suit the illusion. Rather, if its perception the rest of reality clashes with the illusion, it will simply come up with a reason for why.

To use the example from the OP, if you made the illusion be spiked chains that come out and try to pull the target to the ground, they would see the chains come out and wrap around them, and they might be hurt by the spikes, but they would not be pulled to the ground. If the way the illusion was worded by the caster makes the chains automatically retreat to the ground after grasping the target, then the fact that the target is not pulled prone (since the chains are not real and cannot exert force) is a contradiction. This means that the target rationalizes it, which might, for example, mean that they believe that the chains were too loose and slipped off. What it does not mean is that they subconsciously believe they should have been pulled down, and make themselves fall prone. There is no explanation in the latter case, so it is not a rationalization.

[BiPolar]

This is one topic I have seen mentioned a lot, with people confused on how it should work. I personally think is very straight forward, but the reason it comes up so much is that people either don't understand or misuse the word "rationalizes." A lot of people seem to take this as meaning that the target will interpret the illusions effects in a way that are advantageous to the caster, but that is not what that word means. Rather, it simply means that they will find a way to explain it away.

Furthermore, by the text of the spell, the only thing the target ever rationalizes is an illogical occurrence. It doesn't warp its perception of reality (outside the illusion) to better suit the illusion. Rather, if its perception the rest of reality clashes with the illusion, it will simply come up with a reason for why.

To use the example from the OP, if you made the illusion be spiked chains that come out and try to pull the target to the ground, they would see the chains come out and wrap around them, and they might be hurt by the spikes, but they would not be pulled to the ground. If the way the illusion was worded by the caster makes the chains automatically retreat to the ground after grasping the target, then the fact that the target is not pulled prone (since the chains are not real and cannot exert force) is a contradiction. This means that the target rationalizes it, which might, for example, mean that they believe that the chains were too loose and slipped off. What it does not mean is that they subconsciously believe they should have been pulled down, and make themselves fall prone. There is no explanation in the latter case, so it is not a rationalization.

I could definitely see it working that way, and it makes a lot more sense. If it was a phantasmal javelin that pierced him, he'd get the damage. But if it pinned him to a wall and he moved away, he could still do that and he may imagine the javelin broke off the wall, or it passed through him or something else. My question was really implying that the phantasm was DOING something, which retrospectively it can't. THe examples in the spell are pools of fire/acid, pits, bridges, etc. It does say creature, so it could continue to try and fight a creature (and receive damage), but that's about it.

The use of the harpy song is interesting, though (or a gag to silence him or a bag over it's head so it can't see.)

[jas61292]

The use of the harpy song is interesting, though (or a gag to silence him or a bag over it's head so it can't see.)

In my personal interpretation, a harpy's song wouldn't really work, since while they would hear the song, the song would lack any magic.

The bag on the head, on the other hand, is a tough one. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of allowing a spell which does not inflict conditions to effectively inflict blindness. But that said, its hard to rule it in a way that doesn't effectively make that happen. Its not real so they couldn't just take it off their head. But they see it so it would block their vision. I would try to find a way to rule this so it cannot just replace Blindness/Deafness, but I'm not really sure how.

But, its the gag one that I find the most interesting. On the one hand, a gag makes it so you can't talk. And while it can't exert real force, it can certainly make you believe you feel it. So, in theory, you would feel like you have a gag in your mouth, but it wouldn't stop you from talking. I assume when you have a gag and try to talk, you try to make the normal mouth motions, but are restricted from doing so. So if one tried to do so with this spell, they would be able to talk normally. But it would feel really weird, and I have no idea if that would cause it to sound any different. Its interesting to think about.

[BiPolar]

As has been discussed before, this is heavily dependent on DM ruling (as with all illusions), but ultimately, I think what it comes down to is if the recipient believes something is happening, it is. If they believe they are restrained, or hurt, or listening to a magical harpy song, those things ARE happening to it. At least, until they step back and investigate.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In summation, Phantasmal Force is a level 2 save-or-removed-from-combat spell that when used correctly doesn't allow repeat saves barring handwaving or metagaming and which nobody should allow ever.

[BiPolar]

In summation, Phantasmal Force is a level 2 save-or-removed-from-combat spell that when used correctly doesn't allow repeat saves barring handwaving or metagaming and which nobody should allow ever.

As helpful as that comment was...no. It does allow repeat saves. It could remove someone from a round or so before they straight up investigate, but the cleverness of the illusion could dictate how many round(s) before they investigate. But it's an illusion spell and a potentially powerful one at that (as most illusions can be.)

Remember, you can use your minor illusion cantrip to create an illusory barrier that gives you cover for potentially an entire combat. At the cost of...a cantrip. Illusions are powerful, but they require thought and not just using an ability and rolling dice and should be rewarded as such.

[RickAllison]

As well, removing Phantasmal Force means that there is even more reason for people to dump Int. Why bother boosting a stat (other than for RP) when the only effects that you suffer on are two seldom-used spells and doing badly on some skills?

[jas61292]

In summation, Phantasmal Force is a level 2 save-or-removed-from-combat spell that when used correctly doesn't allow repeat saves barring handwaving or metagaming and which nobody should allow ever.

While this is somewhat true, it often is not. I mean, based solely on the wording, many uses of it will have people "investigate" only to auto succeed because the thing the see doesn't actually restrict them like they believe. I mean, sure, if they fail the Int check, they will still believe the thing is real, but because they realized (and rationalized) what it is actually doing, they will no longer be hampered by it.

Of course, it could potentially be used to instantly take out an enemy, but, in my view, it mostly won't, and as a DM, you would be hard pressed to use this in such a way as for it to be a save-or-remove.

[SharkForce]

While this is somewhat true, it often is not. I mean, based solely on the wording, many uses of it will have people "investigate" only to auto succeed because the thing the see doesn't actually restrict them like they believe. I mean, sure, if they fail the Int check, they will still believe the thing is real, but because they realized (and rationalized) what it is actually doing, they will no longer be hampered by it.

Of course, it could potentially be used to instantly take out an enemy, but, in my view, it mostly won't, and as a DM, you would be hard pressed to use this in such a way as for it to be a save-or-remove.

eh, no. you can't know it's an illusion but not see through it. the target will rationalize anything that seems illogical so that it fits. to the target, the iillusion is real (the spell says as much) unless they make the investigation check. the problem is that we don't know whether that means you can't move if you are bound by an illusion of a chain or not. they definitely do not rationalize the illusion away; the rationalization that occurs is that they will assume something happened to change the scenario (seriously, read the description of the spell; if they fall through a bridge, they will rationalize that they were pushed off or tripped or something, but at no point do they rationalize that they fell through what appeared to be a bridge but must be an illusion of one because you can't just pass through a real bridge).

you have either made the investigation check and know it is an illusion and can see right through it, or you did not make the investigation check and think the illusion is real. the only question is whether the illusion can fool your mind to the point that your mind will restrain your body or not.

[BiPolar]

eh, no. you can't know it's an illusion but not see through it. the target will rationalize anything that seems illogical so that it fits. to the target, the iillusion is real (the spell says as much) unless they make the investigation check. the problem is that we don't know whether that means you can't move if you are bound by an illusion of a chain or not. they definitely do not rationalize the illusion away; the rationalization that occurs is that they will assume something happened to change the scenario (seriously, read the description of the spell; if they fall through a bridge, they will rationalize that they were pushed off or tripped or something, but at no point do they rationalize that they fell through what appeared to be a bridge but must be an illusion of one because you can't just pass through a real bridge).

you have either made the investigation check and know it is an illusion and can see right through it, or you did not make the investigation check and think the illusion is real. the only question is whether the illusion can fool your mind to the point that your mind will restrain your body or not.

And this is exactly what it comes down to. Yes, the mind can convince the body something - we've seen this through psychoses, drugs, etc. However, ruling the other way is still legitimate. But would love to see a DM reward for cleverness :D

[jas61292]

eh, no. you can't know it's an illusion but not see through it. the target will rationalize anything that seems illogical so that it fits. to the target, the iillusion is real (the spell says as much) unless they make the investigation check. the problem is that we don't know whether that means you can't move if you are bound by an illusion of a chain or not. they definitely do not rationalize the illusion away; the rationalization that occurs is that they will assume something happened to change the scenario (seriously, read the description of the spell; if they fall through a bridge, they will rationalize that they were pushed off or tripped or something, but at no point do they rationalize that they fell through what appeared to be a bridge but must be an illusion of one because you can't just pass through a real bridge).

you have either made the investigation check and know it is an illusion and can see right through it, or you did not make the investigation check and think the illusion is real. the only question is whether the illusion can fool your mind to the point that your mind will restrain your body or not.

I never implied they rationalized it as being an illusion. What I'm saying is that just cause they believe it exists doesn't mean it effects them. When battling next to a forest, it doesn't really matter to me if half the trees are illusory and I don't know it, so long as they are not impacting the battle.

My point is that a person chained down won't think to investigate. They will think to break free. And the spell cannot inflict conditions, so when they try to break free, they will succeed, since there is nothing holding them down. The chains cannot hold them down any more than the fake bridge can hold them up. That doesn't mean they end the illusion by "breaking free". They still think it's real. It is just irrelevant to them from that point forward.

Claiming that the spell can fool the mind beyond via sensory input is giving the spell power beyond what the rules prescribe it.

[SharkForce]

Claiming that the spell can fool the mind beyond via sensory input is giving the spell power beyond what the rules prescribe it.

except that it isn't. maybe. we don't really know.

again, "the target treats the phantasm as if it were real".

does that mean that an illusion of a chain could restrain the target just like a real chain? i don't know. maybe it does. maybe it doesn't. falling through an illusion of a bridge is involuntary, which is why it is basically useless as an example when it comes to giving us an answer to that question. heck, if it at least just said the target *believes* the phantasm is real, we'd have our answer, really. but if i'm treating the chain as real, well, i couldn't just walk away from a real chain. on the other hand, nothing else in the spell says anything more on the matter, and it seems like the sort of thing that would be important to mention. maybe they just meant that the target *believes* in the phantasm, rather than the target fully interacting with the phantasm as if it was real.

certainly if someone dragged them away from the phantasm, they would be able to effectively ignore it (i mean, if it's an animated chain that is reaching for them they obviously won't go back, but they could walk around it or something like that). that isn't in question; they would rationalize it as the person having freed them from the chains somehow or other. but we don't have anywhere near enough evidence to objectively state that they either can or can't walk away on their own as a result of their struggles to escape the illusionary chain.

in contrast, my 2nd edition AD&D PHB has general rules for illusions that explicitly tell me that a creature leaning on an illusionary wall that it thinks is real will not fall through, because its mind will trick the creature into thinking it is leaning on the wall even though it actually isn't putting any weight on the wall, and a creature walking into an illusion of a pit trap would fall to the ground. it even mentions that the person would be quite surprised if shoved through the wall they thought was real. we could very easily come up with an objective answer to our question in 2nd edition. but, since my 2nd edition AD&D manual has no jurisdiction over 5e, that doesn't help us. we're left with an ambiguous spell that definitely does something, but we're not completely sure whether that something includes the ability to restrain someone or not.

[Segev]

I would argue that the most useful and fair interpretation - fully acknowledging that this is an interpretation - is that the subject treating it as real means that he acts like a mime or a hypnotist's victim, his own conviction that he's bound by illusory chains causing him to pantomime it, and be unable to force himself to break them (unless he's convinced he's strong enough to do so; that sounds like an Investigation check replacing a Strength check that he thinks he's making, to me, but again, that's a suggested ruling, so isn't inherently the One Right Way).

In a session on Sunday, the DM of the 5e game I'm in allowed my little Halfling Illusionist to use phantasmal force to cause a giant squid tentacle to erupt through the wood of the docks on which we were standing to capture a fleeing foe. (It had earlier been part of a crew of the monsters tormenting a giant squid into attacking a ship, which is where my Illusionist got the idea.) When he failed the Intelligence save, the creature flopped helplessly on the ground, thinking it was being shaken back and forth by the tentacle that had it firmly bound.

I think that a reasonable use of the spell, though if it'd been a tougher or longer fight, I could also see argument for the victim trying different things. Certainly, if its buddy had grabbed it and pulled it along, it'd have seen its buddy as rescuing it from the tentacle.


I do think it can logically move. It'd be silly for a creature illusion to be bound in place and not to approach its victim(s) menacingly. The other spells dictate kinds of actions required to move illusions around according to your will. Phantasmal force exists only in the victim's head. So reacts to his thoughts on the matter.

[wunderkid]

To me it seems pretty simple.

They go to walk on the bridge, they fall through it, they justify it as they were pushed.

You chain them them up, they move, they rationalise it as they chains were clearly loose or not grounded or whatever way their brain wants to, but their actual ability to move would not be restricted at all.

As has been mentioned before making them not want to move would be the best course of action, but I don't think anyone would blindly accept they are bound, no matter what you would always test what's holding you in place.

[Segev]

To me it seems pretty simple.

They go to walk on the bridge, they fall through it, they justify it as they were pushed.

You chain them them up, they move, they rationalise it as they chains were clearly loose or not grounded or whatever way their brain wants to, but their actual ability to move would not be restricted at all.

As has been mentioned before making them not want to move would be the best course of action, but I don't think anyone would blindly accept they are bound, no matter what you would always test what's holding you in place.

That is certainly a way to rule it. While at first, it would encourage some creativity to ensure that a useful illusion was made (something to encourage staying put rather than force it), I think such limitations would ultimately stifle it, since it encourages really only finding one workable solution and then sticking with it. "The spikey flaming cage of doom...again."

[SharkForce]

To me it seems pretty simple.

They go to walk on the bridge, they fall through it, they justify it as they were pushed.

You chain them them up, they move, they rationalise it as they chains were clearly loose or not grounded or whatever way their brain wants to, but their actual ability to move would not be restricted at all.

As has been mentioned before making them not want to move would be the best course of action, but I don't think anyone would blindly accept they are bound, no matter what you would always test what's holding you in place.

sure, that's one possible way to interpret it. the other way is equally valid; you are not physically restrained, but your mind won't let you move yourself out. you treat the chains (or whatever) as real absolutely allows for the possibility that you could be restrained just like you could with real chains (or whatever).

since your mind cannot hold you up in the air, the example does not dictate whether your mind will allow you to simply walk out of a phantasmal force cage or not. nobody is going to not want to struggle... but the spell might fool your mind into making you think you are struggling against being wrapped in chains when you're really just wriggling around on the ground while everyone around you wonders what the heck you're doing.

[jas61292]

sure, that's one possible way to interpret it. the other way is equally valid; you are not physically restrained, but your mind won't let you move yourself out. you treat the chains (or whatever) as real absolutely allows for the possibility that you could be restrained just like you could with real chains (or whatever).

since your mind cannot hold you up in the air, the example does not dictate whether your mind will allow you to simply walk out of a phantasmal force cage or not. nobody is going to not want to struggle... but the spell might fool your mind into making you think you are struggling against being wrapped in chains when you're really just wriggling around on the ground while everyone around you wonders what the heck you're doing.

I think the issue I have with this interpretation is that, like I said in my first post, it is forcing you to treat the illusion, not just as real, but as working in whatever way is most advantageous to the caster. Sure, chains could hold someone down. But someone could also break free, or slip out. The fact that the spell has no physical effect means, in my opinion, that they cannot force someone's mind to believe their attempt to break free of the illusion's negative effects fails.

[BiPolar]

I think the issue I have with this interpretation is that, like I said in my first post, it is forcing you to treat the illusion, not just as real, but as working in whatever way is most advantageous to the caster. Sure, chains could hold someone down. But someone could also break free, or slip out. The fact that the spell has no physical effect means, in my opinion, that they cannot force someone's mind to believe their attempt to break free of the illusion's negative effects fails.

But it's not an unreasonable expectation for how it would work. Think of it like a very bad acid trip. I've had friends that fully believed they were inside their carpet and couldn't move. And they didn't move. Yes, they could have, but their mind convinced them and their body that they couldn't.

[SharkForce]

I think the issue I have with this interpretation is that, like I said in my first post, it is forcing you to treat the illusion, not just as real, but as working in whatever way is most advantageous to the caster. Sure, chains could hold someone down. But someone could also break free, or slip out. The fact that the spell has no physical effect means, in my opinion, that they cannot force someone's mind to believe their attempt to break free of the illusion's negative effects fails.

unless the person makes their save or the investigation check, yes.

much like how offensive spells in general do something to you that you won't enjoy if you fail the saving throw and/or ability checks.

and on the flip side of things, if the spell doesn't actually have any effect beyond being slightly more resistant to interaction than other illusion spells (but only for a single person), then it's pretty useless. your concentration for dealing 1d6 damage once because the person will just walk away, plus an int save for no effect whatsoever? uhhh... no thanks. i think i'll pass.

[wunderkid]

The mind over matter is stretching the spells description pretty thin. I can appreciate you believe it to be real, and there is precedent for things like hypnosis making a person unable to move because they believe that to be the case but in terms of the rules trying to cheese extra effects out of it seems a little munchkiny. By the same token I could argue that because of real world precedent if I hit someone with a club who is wearing plate their mobility will be impeded. If it's super creative then as a gm I'd allow it but 'i make chains he can't move' wouldn't cut it for me

You may 100% believe there are chains there. But they will not exert any physical force. The moment you try to move, your body would then move.

[SharkForce]

The mind over matter is stretching the spells description pretty thin. I can appreciate you believe it to be real, and there is precedent for things like hypnosis making a person unable to move because they believe that to be the case but in terms of the rules trying to cheese extra effects out of it seems a little munchkiny. By the same token I could argue that because of real world precedent if I hit someone with a club who is wearing plate their mobility will be impeded. If it's super creative then as a gm I'd allow it but 'i make chains he can't move' wouldn't cut it for me

You may 100% believe there are chains there. But they will not exert any physical force. The moment you try to move, your body would then move.

you mean, kinda like how hold person can't paralyze you? oh wait, it can. well, maybe you mean sort of like how web doesn't restrain you in an area? oh wait, web also can do that. well, maybe it's kinda like how suggestion can't make an enemy just leave the fight entirely? huh. turns out suggestion can actually do that, and is also pretty danged versatile in general.

level 2 spells that disable one or more targets in fairly debilitating ways with a save or ability check to escape are not particularly unusual. it's actually pretty standard.

[wunderkid]

you mean, kinda like how hold person can't paralyze you? oh wait, it can. well, maybe you mean sort of like how web doesn't restrain you in an area? oh wait, web also can do that. well, maybe it's kinda like how suggestion can't make an enemy just leave the fight entirely? huh. turns out suggestion can actually do that, and is also pretty danged versatile in general.

level 2 spells that disable one or more targets in fairly debilitating ways with a save or ability check to escape are not particularly unusual. it's actually pretty standard.

Except you know hold person says it inflicts that state. And well web inflicts the restrained status. Or how suggestion tells you that they have to follow that course of action. You know clearly defined parts of their rules, not clutching at straws to make an effect do something it doesn't say it can do. Illusions are already very powerful already if you know how to use them, and what you're trying to do is turn a level 2 spell into the level 14 wizard illusion school capstone by giving is pseudo physical properties.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think an effective illusion to create with PF is one that offers little reason or opportunity to closely inspect it or interact with it in a controlled fashion, yet demands attention. It could be as simple as a creature appearing to attack. It's in your face, it's relentless, it's hurting you (or whichever interpretation of losing hit points), it's brushing off your best attempts to defeat it (which means it's dangerous, but is no more an indication of foul play than any string of bad rolls), it's highly mobile, elusive if you try to grasp or shove it and inescapable if you try to move away, it's not something you want to just stand and look in the face instead of keeping up your efforts to fight it off.

The gamebreaker is really the fact that you don't get free repeat saves even after you could reasonably say something is wrong, however you would arrive at that conclusion. Instead you need to stop fighting and use an action specifically to "examine" the illusion, but if the illusion is well chosen, why would you? Even if you can tell there's something wrong with this strange unkillable cat, why would you think the one correct way of neutralizing it is to stand and look at it... while it keeps doing damage to you? As a DM I find I can't make this decision for an NPC without feeling I'm metagaming to keep down the effectiveness of the spell. Then if you fail the check, having spent a round, why would you spend another thinking you just didn't look hard enough (while you keep being damaged etc.)? "Big bitey dog, don't be real, OK? Ow. But now?"

If the victim of the spell has allies, it could be argued they'd notice Bob is seemingly swatting at air and would alert him to this fact, but again, first, why would they, really, and second, how does this help Bob much? In a fight with spellcasters, who knows what might make Bob behave the way he does? And even if no one else can see Bob's enemy, why would that necessarily mean he shouldn't be fighting it as hard as he can? It keeps damaging him.

This is why I think it can be said the spell effectively doesn't have repeat saves. By the time you justify, perform and pass the requisite check, chances are good it no longer matters.

Poll: As a DM, how often do you have NPCs stop and spend rounds on Investigation checks against summons or other enemies when illusory enemies aren't involved? As a player, how often do you stop and spend rounds on Investigation checks against enemies if you don't have meta-reasons to think illusions are in play?

[jas61292]

I think an effective illusion to create with PF is one that offers little reason or opportunity to closely inspect it or interact with it in a controlled fashion, yet demands attention. It could be as simple as a creature appearing to attack. It's in your face, it's relentless, it's hurting you (or whichever interpretation of losing hit points), it's brushing off your best attempts to defeat it (which means it's dangerous, but is no more an indication of foul play than any string of bad rolls), it's highly mobile, elusive if you try to grasp or shove it and inescapable if you try to move away, it's not something you want to just stand and look in the face instead of keeping up your efforts to fight it off.

The gamebreaker is really the fact that you don't get free repeat saves even after you could reasonably say something is wrong, however you would arrive at that conclusion. Instead you need to stop fighting and use an action specifically to "examine" the illusion, but if the illusion is well chosen, why would you? Even if you can tell there's something wrong with this strange unkillable cat, why would you think the one correct way of neutralizing it is to stand and look at it... while it keeps doing damage to you? As a DM I find I can't make this decision for an NPC without feeling I'm metagaming to keep down the effectiveness of the spell. Then if you fail the check, having spent a round, why would you spend another thinking you just didn't look hard enough (while you keep being damaged etc.)? "Big bitey dog, don't be real, OK? Ow. But now?"

If the victim of the spell has allies, it could be argued they'd notice Bob is seemingly swatting at air and would alert him to this fact, but again, first, why would they, really, and second, how does this help Bob much? In a fight with spellcasters, who knows what might make Bob behave the way he does? And even if no one else can see Bob's enemy, why would that necessarily mean he shouldn't be fighting it as hard as he can? It keeps damaging him.

This is why I think it can be said the spell effectively doesn't have repeat saves. By the time you justify, perform and pass the requisite check, chances are good it no longer matters.

Poll: As a DM, how often do you have NPCs stop and spend rounds on Investigation checks against summons or other enemies when illusory enemies aren't involved? As a player, how often do you stop and spend rounds on Investigation checks against enemies if you don't have meta-reasons to think illusions are in play?

This is exactly why this spell is powerful. Not because it can exert physical effects (it can't), but because it causes something that can eat up an opponents time and actions, and potentially hurt them. And, if you word you illusion well, any attempts to break free of it after the initial save will never happen without metagaming. It absolutely can shut down a single enemy. But not because they are incapacitated by some condition it inflicts. Rather, it is because they are preoccupied engaging whatever illusory thing you forced them to see.

[SharkForce]

why would anyone waste a bunch of actions fighting something that:

- cannot move.
- inflicts less damage than the average small adorable animal
- shows absolutely no signs of being harmed by anything
- is not, in fact, visible to anyone else, most of whom will be telling you it's there.

and yes, the investigation check takes an action. so does the check to escape from a web. which works in an area, rather than being single target.

it's basically a single-target spell that inflicts a slightly worse effect than web (but again, SINGLE TARGET) and runs off a different attribute. also, it affects fewer types of creatures. and is an illusion, so other things make it not work.

[wunderkid]

why would anyone waste a bunch of actions fighting something that:

- cannot move.
- inflicts less damage than the average small adorable animal
- shows absolutely no signs of being harmed by anything
- is not, in fact, visible to anyone else, most of whom will be telling you it's there.

and yes, the investigation check takes an action. so does the check to escape from a web. which works in an area, rather than being single target.

it's basically a single-target spell that inflicts a slightly worse effect than web (but again, SINGLE TARGET) and runs off a different attribute. also, it affects fewer types of creatures. and is an illusion, so other things make it not work.

It can 'move' in so far as it's not a static image, although yes is restricted to the area you cast it.

It 'shows' signs of damage, or evades every attack so it doesn't take damage, either way the person effected has no idea that it's incapable of being hurt they will justify it however they need to.

And if they can't see it then clearly they have been bewitched by something because clearly that thing is there. Your friends are just stupid you'd better get back to hitting it.

Plus viable for all other illusion tactics. Web is 1 dimensional. Illusions are as good as your imagination. I'd say it's effects a million times better than web because until they see through it they will treat it as real. With web well if I have range I'll just ignore being webbed and shoot you.

[Coffee_Dragon]

- cannot move.

Not most people's interpretation of the spell, I think.


- inflicts less damage than the average small adorable animal

The actual amount of damage is gravy, it mostly serves to reinforce the illusion.


- shows absolutely no signs of being harmed by anything

Not a given. Maybe on some rounds you think you connect, but not well enough to drop it. It's tough and dangerous!


- is not, in fact, visible to anyone else, most of whom will be telling you it's there.

It's got the Invisible to Others property holy crap dangerous

[MaxWilson]

This is one topic I have seen mentioned a lot, with people confused on how it should work. I personally think is very straight forward, but the reason it comes up so much is that people either don't understand or misuse the word "rationalizes." A lot of people seem to take this as meaning that the target will interpret the illusions effects in a way that are advantageous to the caster, but that is not what that word means. Rather, it simply means that they will find a way to explain it away.

Furthermore, by the text of the spell, the only thing the target ever rationalizes is an illogical occurrence. It doesn't warp its perception of reality (outside the illusion) to better suit the illusion. Rather, if its perception the rest of reality clashes with the illusion, it will simply come up with a reason for why.

To use the example from the OP, if you made the illusion be spiked chains that come out and try to pull the target to the ground, they would see the chains come out and wrap around them, and they might be hurt by the spikes, but they would not be pulled to the ground. If the way the illusion was worded by the caster makes the chains automatically retreat to the ground after grasping the target, then the fact that the target is not pulled prone (since the chains are not real and cannot exert force) is a contradiction. This means that the target rationalizes it, which might, for example, mean that they believe that the chains were too loose and slipped off. What it does not mean is that they subconsciously believe they should have been pulled down, and make themselves fall prone. There is no explanation in the latter case, so it is not a rationalization.

That is an excellent and succinct explanation.

[SharkForce]

Not most people's interpretation of the spell, I think.



The actual amount of damage is gravy, it mostly serves to reinforce the illusion.



Not a given. Maybe on some rounds you think you connect, but not well enough to drop it. It's tough and dangerous!



It's got the Invisible to Others property holy crap dangerous

- that is what the spell says. you create an illusion that is no bigger than a certain size. absolutely nothing says it can move. therefore it cannot move.
- that gravy sucks, and 1d6 damage does not reinforce an illusion of any remotely significant threat.
- it is a hard-to-kill enemy that does no damage and inflicts no status effects. it should be ignored, just like any other low damage high toughness opponent, unless there are no other opponents to deal with. it is tough. it is *not* dangerous.
- or, alternately, it's an illusion. you're allowed to investigate it. but even if you don't investigate (and you probably shouldn't, see above), it has such a pathetically weak effect that you can just ignore it entirely.

regarding web as a comparison point: web inflicts the restrained status, which means you have disadvantage to attack rolls and others have advantage to hit you, and keeps you from moving away. feel free to ignore it all you want, but unlike phantasmal force when you ignore web it still does things to you. web can be used in whichever dimension you require, assuming it even matters, and can even be used on enemies in the air (it ends after one round if you do, but still works for that round). though i find one-dimensional an amusing thing to comment about web... phantasmal force is less than one-dimensional (it affects only a single point). web is actually two-dimensional, more or less (it affects a plane, for all intents and purposes).

if you can just walk away from a phantasmal force, that makes it pretty useless, because just about anything you could do with phantasmal force to a single target you could do with other illusions to multiple targets. except those other illusions typically actually do include provisions for moving them around if you want.

[Coffee_Dragon]

- it is a hard-to-kill enemy that does no damage and inflicts no status effects. it should be ignored, just like any other low damage high toughness opponent, unless there are no other opponents to deal with.

Well, yes, "pointedly ignore the druid-turned-foaming-bear until all their friends have dropped" is also a bit of a metagame problem. Tactically very sound given the system, hard to rationalize in-world.

[wunderkid]

- that is what the spell says. you create an illusion that is no bigger than a certain size. absolutely nothing says it can move. therefore it cannot move.
- that gravy sucks, and 1d6 damage does not reinforce an illusion of any remotely significant threat.
- it is a hard-to-kill enemy that does no damage and inflicts no status effects. it should be ignored, just like any other low damage high toughness opponent, unless there are no other opponents to deal with. it is tough. it is *not* dangerous.
- or, alternately, it's an illusion. you're allowed to investigate it. but even if you don't investigate (and you probably shouldn't, see above), it has such a pathetically weak effect that you can just ignore it entirely.

regarding web as a comparison point: web inflicts the restrained status, which means you have disadvantage to attack rolls and others have advantage to hit you, and keeps you from moving away. feel free to ignore it all you want, but unlike phantasmal force when you ignore web it still does things to you. web can be used in whichever dimension you require, assuming it even matters, and can even be used on enemies in the air (it ends after one round if you do, but still works for that round). though i find one-dimensional an amusing thing to comment about web... phantasmal force is less than one-dimensional (it affects only a single point). web is actually two-dimensional, more or less (it affects a plane, for all intents and purposes).

if you can just walk away from a phantasmal force, that makes it pretty useless, because just about anything you could do with phantasmal force to a single target you could do with other illusions to multiple targets. except those other illusions typically actually do include provisions for moving them around if you want.

"A phantasm created to appear as a creature can attack the target"

That sounds a lot like moving to me.

-so basically your point there is, that if a big bad evil boss attacks you and rolls a 1 on the damage dice + str mod for a total of 4/5 damage they are no longer a threat so every one of your characters will automatically ignore them for the rest of the combat?

It's as dangerous as they believe it to be. If they think it's a greater demon they believe that is the case and will prioritize it over the goblin mooks. You are correct you can walk away, but only if your illusion is something they would logically walk away from.

And web may give them disadvantage. That's still more of chance of you getting hit than the 0% because they are attacking something that doesn't exist.

And *facepalm* by one dimensional I meant singular in use and applications. Phant has a huge variety of applications. Limited mainly by how creative you can be. It can solve some encounters before they even begin, web cannot.

I'd be willing to bet money if I Gm'd and threw something big at you and you had no out of character knowledge, you'd waste a whole lot of time attacking it and 'missing' before thinking to investigate or ignore it.

[SharkForce]

if it's doing a maximum of 6 damage per round and is tough enough to survive even a single round, i may or may not suspect it is an illusion (and whether i do or not, i probably won't investigate... that would be a silly use of an action even if it is an illusion)... but no, i'm not going to pay much attention to it. if the damage is that low, sorry, it's just not a big boss, no matter how much it might look like one. if that's what it did in the entire round with no status conditions inflicted, it isn't a big threat. there are CR 1/2 creatures that are more dangerous than it. heck, there are probably CR 1/4 creatures that are more scary than that. even if we assume it can move from where it starts (and again, unlike every other illusion you might think would allow movement it doesn't say it can, and rules are permissive not restrictive generally speaking), i'm not going to spend more than one round attacking it.

and ultimately, if phantasmal force doesn't actually allow for interaction with it by the target, no it isn't particularly useful in a variety of situations. it is terrible in a variety of situations, because any time there is more than one target, you are going to want any other illusion spell. seriously, silent image would be better for most of the uses, because it works on a group and they don't get *any* initial save. if you need sound, well, minor illusion doesn't require concentration and can provide that too. and, once again, you don't get a saving throw to try and resist it, and it works on groups.

i mean, certainly you *could* read it the way you're describing. it's definitely possible. but i look at that spell and i can't help but think it's a waste of a spell slot, a waste of a spell known, and a waste of a prepared spell, which to me at least suggests there's something not right. played that way, it's a terrible illusion, a terrible control spell, and a terrible damage spell, and should just never have been written. if it depends on the DM feeling guilty about possible metagaming when everything the target is experiencing should be telling the target to worry about other things first in order for the spell to do anything at all, then there is a problem.

[wunderkid]

Except 1-6 damage isn't terrible. And it's actually inflicting damage which to most characters (not players) indicates that it's real. After all illusions can't actually hurt you, so this greater demon must have just not landed a proper hit, hell maybe he even hurt you and he didn't hit you, his power is so great that even a miss will inflict pain. And ive got no doubt whatsoever in my mind that a bbeg or even any and every possible creature has fluffed their attacks against you in the past, either missed for one whole round, or rolled poorly on damage, and I'll bet you never just ignored it. It's purely because you know it's an illusion out of character that you're claiming your character would walk away. Hells I'd even bet that if I threw something against you that only did D6 damage and wasn't an illusion you wouldn't walk away from it.

You as the player are rationalizing that it's not a threat and you can ignore it. Your character when failing the save will not (bar metagaming) have the same level of omniscience. He fully believes that there is a huge threat right there.

Silent image, any interaction proves it to be an illusion, so at best it buys you the first action of a group. So it basically effects a single person unless used creatively.

Minor illusion is great easily my favourite cantrip and I don't think you'll find many who disagree it's amazing but again falls to the same pitfall of any interaction instantly makes it obviously an illusion.

The strength of force is that because it inflicts actual damage and interaction is automatically justified by the target themselves it can work literal miracles. It also targets int which is in 5e one of the best saves you could target. It's only a 2nd level spell. And I'm not arguing it's the best one out there either. But it's a lot stronger than you give it credit. The only thing that makes it weak is the fact that players (and gms) will instictively metagame it but that's a fault of the players not the system.

But I will test it Monday with a group of players. I will throw some phant forces about, the players will be unaware of this and we will see if they ignore it.

I'd like to ask other people on the forum if they wouldn't mind doing the same, purely to get an objective angle on it.

So basically you make the players confront a big scary illusion of something (your discretion) but it's got to be a lot scarier than what it is they are fighting around it and see how long it takes for those players to break away and ignore it.

Bonus points if you can make the save roll for them behind the screen to remove any chance of metagaming, like you'd do with notice checks, or at least that's how I like to do them so they don't know they have passed/failed and keep looking.

[Gignere]

I am DM of my group I allow Phantasmal Force to duplicate any CC of 1st or 2nd level no questions asked, otherwise the spell is way too weak for a second level slot. This is mainly restrain, blind, or prone as long as the player is creative. Hell I have used it on my players because I threw an Aboleth at them and they accept the CC without complaints.

Not sure why people want to nerf the crap out of this spell. In my experience even with a -1 in Investigation check the NPC or PC is out after a couple of rounds of CC.

[BurgerBeast]

sure, that's one possible way to interpret it. the other way is equally valid; you are not physically restrained, but your mind won't let you move yourself out. you treat the chains (or whatever) as real absolutely allows for the possibility that you could be restrained just like you could with real chains (or whatever).

I'm not sure it is. The spell says the victim treats the phantasm as if it were real. If the illusion is that you are bound by chains, your first reaction would probably be to test their restraint. Arriving at in illogical response form the illusion, you would rationalize it. I'm not sure what that looks like, though. The chains are made of some flexible magical force?

In any case, how about this: how about the caster needs to come up with a workable illusion? Instead of chains, how about the illusion that they are walled in by spiked walls? The logical reaction is not to test these. It's to stay still and not touch them.

[Kane0]

I once had an aboleth use it in its lair, it went for nasty chains too. It deliberately targeted the weak willed but strong guy like a good intelligent foe and he fell for it, trying to fight the chains and rationalizing away his attempts until another party broke the aboleths concentration.
It was pretty funny watching him flail around while the others went into battle.
He got dominated later, so at the end of the session he obviously said he preferred the one where he got restrained and damaged until he made the save.

[SharkForce]

why wouldn't you try to damage the spikes on a spiked wall? it is relatively easy to smash through a wall of stone (as in, relatively easy compared to what i imagine it would be like trying to do the same for a real life one-foot-thick wall of stone). if a magic wall surrounds you, i'd expect you to try and break out (also, the size of creature it can surround is seriously limited. phantasmal force doesn't cover a very large area).

and actually... i've ignored plenty of monsters that had an unimpressive first round before. sometimes i regret it. sometimes not. but until the monster proves it is a threat, i'm not going to treat it as one. if it looks big and scary, well, that doesn't mean it actually *is* big and scary, and taking the amount of damage from an attack that i'd expect from a wizard using a dagger is not going to persuade me that i need to focus on it. and considering the phantasmal force monster is *never* going to actually do any major damage, well, i'm probably not going to pay it much attention next round either. i mean, if the wizard in your party uses a sling or a dart on something and deals roughly similar damage, would you expect all the enemies you're facing to ignore the rest of the party who are each dealing double or triple that damage to focus down the guy lobbing darts? and especially when the enemy in question is only visible to one person, and cannot leave the location it is created in...

and yes, phantasmal force has a very nice saving throw attribute. but you know what is better than int save to resist? no save at all. which is what other illusions generally have until you've interacted with them. and it is far easier than you give credit for to get use out of an illusion in a way that impacts an entire group of people. illusionary terrain to hide behind. an illusionary bridge will probably only make one person fall, just like phantasmal force, but it will probably also leave their friends standing on a cliff edge, potentially with you and a bunch of experts at shoving behind them. in contrast, with phantasmal force, there's a fair chance the rest of the party ignores the fake bridge and drags the guy who sees it along with them. other illusions can draw enemies into an ambush, draw them away from your party, distract people so you can sneak past, frighten enemies into running away rather than face what they see, and it can do all of those things to an entire group with even less realistic chance of them resisting it until they try to interact with it.

[Segev]

But I will test it Monday with a group of players. I will throw some phant forces about, the players will be unaware of this and we will see if they ignore it.

I'd like to ask other people on the forum if they wouldn't mind doing the same, purely to get an objective angle on it.

So basically you make the players confront a big scary illusion of something (your discretion) but it's got to be a lot scarier than what it is they are fighting around it and see how long it takes for those players to break away and ignore it.

Bonus points if you can make the save roll for them behind the screen to remove any chance of metagaming, like you'd do with notice checks, or at least that's how I like to do them so they don't know they have passed/failed and keep looking.I suggest you set it up by having minor illusions of whatever your big, snarly monster's natural noises are popping up in some dense foliage or other easy-to-hide-in terrain. Then, when the spell is cast, ask your whole party for Perception. Roll your victim's Int save secretly. Have its first action be attacking the target. Justify "you see it" because it attacked him; others still have to keep making Perception checks.

Now you have a reason why only one PC is noticing it: it's hiding really really well.


I'm not sure it is. The spell says the victim treats the phantasm as if it were real. If the illusion is that you are bound by chains, your first reaction would probably be to test their restraint. Arriving at in illogical response form the illusion, you would rationalize it. I'm not sure what that looks like, though. The chains are made of some flexible magical force?

In any case, how about this: how about the caster needs to come up with a workable illusion? Instead of chains, how about the illusion that they are walled in by spiked walls? The logical reaction is not to test these. It's to stay still and not touch them.
Eh, most low-Int targets likely will try to bash the walls down. They appeared out of nowhere; who knows how solid they are?

The trouble with this "workable illusion" argument is that, eventually, the caster will figure one out. And then he has no incentive to be creative ever again, because creativity beyond using "what works" has a high risk of being no-sold.

My favorite "creative disabling" effect is to make an illusion of a pit trap opening up beneath the target. The sensation of falling and the visual image of walls rising up around him are within the purview of a phantasmal force, and his efforts to climb the illusory walls will obviously fail (because he's scrabbling at thin air, trying to move vertically), which he'll rationalize. He has no reason to think he can move horizontally.

But I still lean towards the notion that, until he Investigates the illusion, he should act like it's solid. The example talks about rationalizing impossible actions failing, not about whether he can ignore the illusion's apparent solidity under his own power alone. It's a single target, all-in-the-mind illusion. It should be pretty powerful in what it can trick the victim into believing. So I think "you can't break the chains" or "you can't walk through that wall" are valid.

Let's examine another example restraining illusion, though, from all camps of thought: The classic rope trap that closes around feet and hoists you upside-down into the air.

The phantasmal force is of such a rope hoisting the victim up into the air, his arms unable to reach the ground. Let's say it binds only one ankle, so he thinks the other is swinging free. As far as he's concerned, he's not on the ground anymore. He hasn't "broken" the rope by pulling his legs apart. Attempts to kick the rope off his ankle or to cut the rope - even if he can contort to reach it - will obviously fail. Now, nothing is preventing him, physically, from simply walking or crawling, since he's really on the ground. What happens? Does the illusion hold him, or does it fail instantly when he attempts to move and it works, with him rationalizing it as the rope breaking? What actions is he "allowed" to take while he believes the illusion?

[wunderkid]

Well as much as I'd love to keep arguing the 'you would attack it' 'no I wouldn't' circle I still don't believe you would ignore something that to your character is an obvious damage dealing threat just because it hasn't wound up its wombo yet. Or ive never seen someone ignore a wizard throwing spells just because he misses for a turn or two, especially if he actually does damage on a miss, Or a caster charging up to channel a huge spell while being surrounded by a fire aura. Sure he isn't doing a lot with his aura but if you ignore him then a whole world of hurt is comming your way. I'd like to see you ignore that, and then find out it wasn't an illusion and feel bad.

My point is simply that ignoring it isn't something any rational character would do. 1-6 damage isn't much on paper, but to your actual character it hurts, like actually hurts, draws blood as far as their concerned. Not every blow in battle is a telling one, that doesn't make it any less of a threat if it is actually killing you.

Or even better plan make it identical to what it is you're fighting, but all up in your face, then there's no 'better" threat to target, and the low damage is simply because you keep missing each other, absolutely no justification for a character to walk away from that.

And as I've said before yes other illusion spells are amazing. I'm a huge fan of what you can do with them and I'm not saying phant force is the best illusion spell out there. But being able to take a threat out of combat for a considerable amount of time gives it both in combat and out of combat use. Most illusions are amazing for the out of combat trickery. But in a fight don't do a huge deal unless used very creatively. In a nut shell it has its uses. It's not a bad spell to take because it fills the void of an illusion that can be interacted with which for an illusion is awesome.

[SharkForce]

if something misses you once, that's coincidence.

if something repeatedly misses you round after round, then it is a non-threat.

if i am to treat this joke of a monster as a threat, it had better do more than 1d6 damage, because so long as i can see how much damage it is doing to me (and that damage is a joke), no i am not responding to it the same as i would to most other creatures.

oh, and also, in a world where illusions are a thing, and phantasmal force is not really acting on me in any way... yes, i will ignore the spellcaster who is trying really hard to do a big flashy but remarkably slow-to-cast spell, but which nobody else can see. because combat spells don't take 10 rounds to cast, and that spellcaster can't even appear to cast anything that leaves the 10 foot cube you're allowed to make an illusion in, so when he casts his first fireball and it fizzles 5 feet away from him, even if i am assuming he's real, i'm going to assume he is also the most incompetent spellcaster ever. especially when he tries to cast magic missile next round and that also fizzles 10 feet away. and then, the round after, when he tries (and fails) to cast lightning bolt. and so on.

[RickAllison]

Just adding my two coppers, I've viewed that the damage suffered to hit points by the spell is not the same as that felt by the character. I would run it where the actual damage die was rolled behind a screen while damage comparable to what a real threat of that force would do. Sure, you might ignore a foe dealing 1d6, but how would you react to an Assassin rolling 12d6 to damage you? The phantasmal force's damage is from the mind making the damage real; for the mind to do that, it makes more sense to me that it seems like the illusion is far more dangerous than it is.

[Temperjoke]

I think the problem that everyone seems to be looping around is just how far will an affected person twist their logic to suit the illusion created by PF? The example used in the PHB is a person afflicted by PF who tries to cross a bridge that was created by PF will fall, and then justify why they fell. So, they're still affected by physics and are trying to explain why a bridge that should have held them didn't. The other effect is that if damage of a certain type is done, the afflicted person will justify why it hurt them ("Oh, the monster hit me and it's claws did that").

This isn't like genjutsu from Naruto, which the enemy is forced to deal with only that reality that is created and not the real world (I don't know if that's how some people were thinking of it, but that's what it sounds like some of the people see the spell). If you use PF to make an enemy see monsters, unless the enemy sees that monster as a threat, they are free to ignore it and go after another target, just like they're free to ignore one player and move to attack another player. If you create an obstacle, it's natural to try and overcome that obstacle. Spiked chain ensnaring them, sure the afflicted person thinks the spikes do damage, but they won't feel the downward pressure, so I could see them thinking the chains didn't lock or catch and just scraped.

That's the danger in using something ultra specific. They think there's a wall between them and the target, they're going to try and get through, and if there isn't a reason for the wall to fail, then they'll go through. For example, you make a wall of stone appear, they're going to try and hammer through. Their strike passes through, since it doesn't have actual substance, they may still see a wall, but they know they can push through it. If it were a wall of fire though, sure they can pass through it, but they may hesitate, or they might be afraid to pass through depending on how they feel about fire.

[wunderkid]

Yeah see once again you're metagaming. There are rituals in d&d, and magic exists. Therefore there's no reason for your character to think 'ah! The rules don't contain multiple round casting spells therefore I can ignore him'. Thats once again you as a player knowing the rules and applying that omniscience to your character.

Also there are plenty of monsters in the MM with terrible chance to hit but when they do they do huge damage. You're telling me you'd ignore them too?

If you make an illusion that tries to make attacks that will clearly fizzle you're a fool already.

Also to put it in perspective 6 damage is flat out enough to kill someone. A level 1 wizard with +0 con has 6hp. So the damage your character takes is enough to murder a normal person. It's not a pathetic amount of damage.

It's like someone stabbing you in the stomach but missing all your vital organs. There is some one who has survived being stabbed 95 times. After the first 5 do you think they went 'well the damage isn't that big, I'll just ignore you for now'. Do you think any sane character would get stabbed in the stomach then ignore it? Your character doesn't know that 6 damage isn't a great deal in the same way the person who survived being stabbed 95 times didn't go 'well I've got 100hp and he is only doing 1 damage per stab so I'm good as long as he gives up before 100'.

Basically you only think the spell is bad because you metagame the hell out of it.

[tieren]

I always thought I would use it to make something like an iron maiden that completely encases the target and has spikes that will poke them if they move. Of course the natural tendency would be to test it, and when the target does they take damage confirming the reality of it.

[Segev]

If you use PF to make an enemy see monsters, unless the enemy sees that monster as a threat, they are free to ignore it and go after another target, just like they're free to ignore one player and move to attack another player.Which is one reason why monsters-as-threats are deprecated. It just seems a poor use of phantasmal force.


If you create an obstacle, it's natural to try and overcome that obstacle.Indeed. The question is how successful they can be while they believe the illusion. Assuming it is only "they attempt to do something that the illusion would prevent," rather than "they attempt to do something that physics says they can't since they would need the illusion to be real to do it," we're left with an unanswered question: can he walk through that illusory wall, or does his mind trick him into stopping, THINKING he's run into a solid object?


Spiked chain ensnaring them, sure the afflicted person thinks the spikes do damage, but they won't feel the downward pressure, so I could see them thinking the chains didn't lock or catch and just scraped. He feels the illusion just fine; it produces tactile elements. The question is what happens when he tries to walk away from where the chains anchor him. Again, does his mind make him stop, thinking he's unable to break the chains, or does he successfully walk, and "rationalize" that the chains snapped or the manacles came loose?

The example of walking on an illusory bridge has him try something no amount of his mind fooling him could enable him to do. "Not walking across this imaginary line" is something he definitely is physically capable of doing (barring being dragged across it). Does the illusion convince his mind to prevent him from "really" trying? Think of him like a mime who is mad enough to believe he really IS stuck in a box. That's what's being considered, here.


That's the danger in using something ultra specific. They think there's a wall between them and the target, they're going to try and get through, and if there isn't a reason for the wall to fail, then they'll go through. For example, you make a wall of stone appear, they're going to try and hammer through. Their strike passes through, since it doesn't have actual substance, they may still see a wall, but they know they can push through it. If it were a wall of fire though, sure they can pass through it, but they may hesitate, or they might be afraid to pass through depending on how they feel about fire.Actually, would they see their spike "pass through" by breaking it...or see it NOT pass through but instead "feel" it scrape ineffectually?

I'm not seeing examples of things that are "not ultra specific" to demonstrate what we SHOULD be doing. You say "ultra specific" things are dangerous because they so easily fail, but without examples of what is not "ultra specific" that should work, we can't really draw any conclusions of how it's still useful under your interpretation.


I always thought I would use it to make something like an iron maiden that completely encases the target and has spikes that will poke them if they move. Of course the natural tendency would be to test it, and when the target does they take damage confirming the reality of it.
But they also can just walk out, shattering the spikes in the process, by the "their minds don't fool them into stopping" interpretation.

[SharkForce]

I don't need to know every single spell to know that the guy chanting on and on and on is not casting a combat spell. that's not knowledge of every spell in existence, that's knowledge of what works in combat. outside of dragonball Z, attacks that take half an hour to launch and require you to stand there yelling the entire time while holding a certain pose are something that no person would make into a combat spell, because combat spells need to be fast to cast.

and as far as it goes, I'm pretty sure that a typical reasonably experienced fighter has a pretty good idea of the difference between "I'm about to die because that attack was so powerful" and "I'm not about to die from that attack any time soon". indeed, most any adventurer has likely experienced several near-death experiences by the time they've gone a few levels in.

I mean, we're assuming they can walk through an illusion of a wall no problem. why would their imaginary wounds make them feel like a hindrance when imaginary chains don't feel like a hindrance? the spell certainly doesn't say anywhere that the threat feels vastly more dangerous than it is, or that you should tell the person that was hit by it that they took substantially more damage (again, in contrast, 2nd AD&D tells you to do exactly that).

[BiPolar]

I don't need to know every single spell to know that the guy chanting on and on and on is not casting a combat spell. that's not knowledge of every spell in existence, that's knowledge of what works in combat. outside of dragonball Z, attacks that take half an hour to launch and require you to stand there yelling the entire time while holding a certain pose are something that no person would make into a combat spell, because combat spells need to be fast to cast.

and as far as it goes, I'm pretty sure that a typical reasonably experienced fighter has a pretty good idea of the difference between "I'm about to die because that attack was so powerful" and "I'm not about to die from that attack any time soon". indeed, most any adventurer has likely experienced several near-death experiences by the time they've gone a few levels in.

I mean, we're assuming they can walk through an illusion of a wall no problem. why would their imaginary wounds make them feel like a hindrance when imaginary chains don't feel like a hindrance? the spell certainly doesn't say anywhere that the threat feels vastly more dangerous than it is, or that you should tell the person that was hit by it that they took substantially more damage (again, in contrast, 2nd AD&D tells you to do exactly that).

I think most of us have figured out that a PF creature isn't the best use of the spell. As you said, they don't HAVE to fight it, but may choose instead to just take the d6 damage each round. A completely reasonable choice.

As for "we've we're assuming they can walk through an illusion of a wall no problem." I don't think that's the assumption at all. The bridge example in the spell is very different than a wall. With a bridge, there is a force of gravity that must be defied. They can't levitate or fly so they have to drop. With a wall, it very could be the situation of a mime actually convinced he's stuck in a box. Yes, we are arguing for and against that interpretation, but that's why it's not an assumption. Some of us are going with it and others are not. I think both interpretations can be valid, but we also don't want to nerf the spell in either direction. I think a good DM can figure out a middle ground that's reasonable without metagaming for each particular illusion created by the player.

[SharkForce]

As for "we've we're assuming they can walk through an illusion of a wall no problem." I don't think that's the assumption at all. The bridge example in the spell is very different than a wall. With a bridge, there is a force of gravity that must be defied. They can't levitate or fly so they have to drop. With a wall, it very could be the situation of a mime actually convinced he's stuck in a box. Yes, we are arguing for and against that interpretation, but that's why it's not an assumption. Some of us are going with it and others are not. I think both interpretations can be valid, but we also don't want to nerf the spell in either direction. I think a good DM can figure out a middle ground that's reasonable without metagaming for each particular illusion created by the player.

i know both can be valid. there are a number of people who are insisting that it can only mean that you can walk right through a phantasmal force wall, however, and that is who my point was addressed to.

personally, i think it should be that the target treats the spell as real, such that they could not walk through a wall, because interpreting it as "you can just walk through the wall" generally makes the spell a rather poor use of a level 2 spell slot and your concentration, particularly when other illusions work on an unlimited number of people and don't allow an initial save the instant the spell is cast.

[Segev]

I'm still amused, for the record, at the idea of using Illusory Reality (the level 14 Illusionist subclass feature) on a phantasmal force. Suddenly, there's a real object that only one person can see, hear, or feel. He definitely can walk across that bridge, now...but can anybody else?

[BiPolar]

i know both can be valid. there are a number of people who are insisting that it can only mean that you can walk right through a phantasmal force wall, however, and that is who my point was addressed to.

personally, i think it should be that the target treats the spell as real, such that they could not walk through a wall, because interpreting it as "you can just walk through the wall" generally makes the spell a rather poor use of a level 2 spell slot and your concentration, particularly when other illusions work on an unlimited number of people and don't allow an initial save the instant the spell is cast.

Ah,my bad! But yeah, we're definitely in agreement. There needs to be some substance to the spell, and illusions are all about creativity. Spam it and the DM will nerf it. Be clever and be rewarded.

Segev - the illusory reality would be freaking awesome. I wonder if you could use it on yourself?

[RickAllison]

I'm still amused, for the record, at the idea of using Illusory Reality (the level 14 Illusionist subclass feature) on a phantasmal force. Suddenly, there's a real object that only one person can see, hear, or feel. He definitely can walk across that bridge, now...but can anybody else?

Now I really wish PF didn't last only a minute. I can see an NPC convincing the party that there is an invisible floor by crossing it using PF and Illusory Reality.

Here is an intriguing question at that point. Suppose a barbarian believes through PF and IR that he is crossing a moving bridge and he carries a hand cart with him. Does the cart fall through, or does it remain because he is holding it and sees the illusion? If it remains, does it fall when he lets go? If he investigates the floor, does it fall out from beneath him?

If that last one works, then it explains that Looney Tunes is filled with Illusionists :smallbiggrin:

[Temperjoke]

I'm still amused, for the record, at the idea of using Illusory Reality (the level 14 Illusionist subclass feature) on a phantasmal force. Suddenly, there's a real object that only one person can see, hear, or feel. He definitely can walk across that bridge, now...but can anybody else?

You know, this thread started me thinking too, what if players combined Phantasmal Force with Hold Person to make the target think he was being held in a giant hand or something that kept him completely immobile? If the target failed one check would they still need a check on the other spell? If they had no reason to suspect the 2nd spell was the thing holding them, I mean?

[Pex]

I'm still amused, for the record, at the idea of using Illusory Reality (the level 14 Illusionist subclass feature) on a phantasmal force. Suddenly, there's a real object that only one person can see, hear, or feel. He definitely can walk across that bridge, now...but can anybody else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0iBwm491zs

[wunderkid]

I don't need to know every single spell to know that the guy chanting on and on and on is not casting a combat spell. that's not knowledge of every spell in existence, that's knowledge of what works in combat. outside of dragonball Z, attacks that take half an hour to launch and require you to stand there yelling the entire time while holding a certain pose are something that no person would make into a combat spell, because combat spells need to be fast to cast.

and as far as it goes, I'm pretty sure that a typical reasonably experienced fighter has a pretty good idea of the difference between "I'm about to die because that attack was so powerful" and "I'm not about to die from that attack any time soon". indeed, most any adventurer has likely experienced several near-death experiences by the time they've gone a few levels in.

I mean, we're assuming they can walk through an illusion of a wall no problem. why would their imaginary wounds make them feel like a hindrance when imaginary chains don't feel like a hindrance? the spell certainly doesn't say anywhere that the threat feels vastly more dangerous than it is, or that you should tell the person that was hit by it that they took substantially more damage (again, in contrast, 2nd AD&D tells you to do exactly that).

Oh I wish I could speak to your gm and get him to hit you in the face with a delayed blast fireball. You know the spell that you can channel for up to a minute increasing its damage each turn? The combat spell. That according to you would never become a combat spell?

Also it's perfectly viable, im sure in war there would be plenty call for someone who could cast meteor swarm on steroids as long as the caster was protected, that kind of thing would be very sought after and perfectly within the realms of being a reality. At least in so far as your character would know.

Once again 6 damage is still a lethal amount. Maybe not to your character. But it's a knife in the stomach. And that despite all your posturing isn't something you just ignore. As a player you can go 'meh it will take 10 turns before I'm in any real danger' your character will go 'I've been stabbed, it hurts, I don't know exactly how much damage it's done but I've been hit by a great axe before that's caused about the same amount of pain'. You also have no idea how much damage an attack has really done in terms of internal damage, a knife to the stomach that hits something vital will hurt as much as something that misses something vital. Your hit points aren't something your character knows about its a value assigned to the player to allow them to track how close to death it's not something your character knows about. More damage does not = more pain. That's once again you metagaming and using your character sheet to judge a situation. Something painless can inflict more hit points worth of damage than something that hurts a lot.

[SharkForce]

delayed blast fireball, as in, the spell that disrupts the caster's own concentration on anything else, thereby preventing them from casting another much more useful spell prior to using it, and where they can spend an entire round adding 1d6 damage while everyone can calmly walk away instead of getting blown up? the spell that does the same amount of damage in that spell slot as a fireball, but takes up an extra spell known, and also can't be used in anything less than a level 7 spell slot (and let me just add, there are things that i would be a LOT more worried about coming from someone who can cast level 7 spells than a stupid delayed blast fireball. a mass suggestion could have 3/4 of my party running away from the battle for TEN DAYS allowing said wizard quite a long while to prepare, or several people could spend the entire fight stuck in a force cage, or we could all spend the entire combat either holding onto the ground or flying up into the air while his archer friends take pot shots, all of which are far more devastating and could take effect instantly).

sure, by all means, please tell my DM to throw a wizard to throw delayed blast fireball at me. i won't mind in the slightest. it's a terrible spell, unless you haven't been concentrating on anything else and detonate it immediately. even then, you should just use regular fireball instead. but seriously, i'd love to meet a wizard who thinks that standing in the middle of a pitched battle concentrating on slightly increasing the damage of a fireball is an effective use of concentration and spell slots. it sounds like a great way for me to find a nice valuable spellbook, really.

[Zalabim]

I think Illusory Reality requires you to see the illusion you're making real. I'll double check that, but it still lets an illusionist make a personal bridge, ladder, or rope and be the world's best mime. [Edit: Does not require you to see the illusion.]

Phantasmal Force says it can be no bigger than a 10' cube, but pending the exact wording again, I don't think you ever put it anywhere. It has a size limit but it's never placed on the battlefield. It can/can't move because it doesn't exist. It's a figment in the target's perception and only has reality relative to the target. That would fit giving it the ability to effectively blind an enemy by putting a bag over their head. [Edit: The phantasm does not get placed anywhere, but it has an area the creature can be in or near. ????]

Delayed Blast Fireball is perfect for a certain type of Glyph of Warding. This message will self-destruct in 60 seconds. It's also good for parties that want to take 20 when investigating magic runes.

[wunderkid]

delayed blast fireball, as in, the spell that disrupts the caster's own concentration on anything else, thereby preventing them from casting another much more useful spell prior to using it, and where they can spend an entire round adding 1d6 damage while everyone can calmly walk away instead of getting blown up? the spell that does the same amount of damage in that spell slot as a fireball, but takes up an extra spell known, and also can't be used in anything less than a level 7 spell slot (and let me just add, there are things that i would be a LOT more worried about coming from someone who can cast level 7 spells than a stupid delayed blast fireball. a mass suggestion could have 3/4 of my party running away from the battle for TEN DAYS allowing said wizard quite a long while to prepare, or several people could spend the entire fight stuck in a force cage, or we could all spend the entire combat either holding onto the ground or flying up into the air while his archer friends take pot shots, all of which are far more devastating and could take effect instantly).

sure, by all means, please tell my DM to throw a wizard to throw delayed blast fireball at me. i won't mind in the slightest. it's a terrible spell, unless you haven't been concentrating on anything else and detonate it immediately. even then, you should just use regular fireball instead. but seriously, i'd love to meet a wizard who thinks that standing in the middle of a pitched battle concentrating on slightly increasing the damage of a fireball is an effective use of concentration and spell slots. it sounds like a great way for me to find a nice valuable spellbook, really.

Delayed blast fireball was in there as proof of the thing you claimed doesn't exist, well existing. Plus a single slot for 22d6 damage because according to you everyone will completely ignore you is legitimately amazing, I'll take that any day of the week. It doesn't disrupt concentration, it uses concentration, and doesn't prevent the casting of any other spell. It's far more efficient than a fireball. But clearly your definition of better is less damage. I'm also sure there are a few other spells that will be just as threatening. If not dealt with. But hey according to you no damage = no threat so mages must have a field day against you as long as they stay away from direct damage spells because 0 damage is less than d6.

Also standing in the middle? No you notice him off to the side, hiding but clearly not very well, that's why you spot him and your team miss him, clearly winding up for a big spell while there is no aggro on him and casting other spells which you can only assume are buffs or things like suggestion and if you're a wizard and recognize it then yes he is definitely winding up a huge blast while buffing his team and debuffing yours. Yet you ignore him? Well later he chooses to launch his attack, throwing in a fireball too doing 34d6 to your entire party. Or casting mass suggestion. Why? Because according to you a mage concentrating on a delayed fireball and not casting spells that do actual damage is basically invisible. He isn't a threat so everyone will ignore him, hell to me that says every single mage in existence will pick up delayed blast fireball.

Clearly you can't help but metagame so yes for you phatasmal force is a bad spell. In fact don't go near any spell that requires you to act like a character and not like the omniscient player that you are.

[SharkForce]

only an idiot would use delayed blast fireball in the middle of a pitched battle and sit there concentrating on it. you get very little value (+1d6 damage) in exchange for not being able to use it when it is actualy useful (before the enemy is mixed in with your own people) and for risking completely losing control of it.

you don't sit there and delay your delayed blast fireball in the middle of a fight. not unless you're an idiot anyways. the important part of DBF in earlier editions has always been the superior damage (which it does not have in 5e). the delay part? well, it wasn't useless, but it certainly wasn't the reason you got excited about finally learning delayed blast fireball.

it isn't a single slot for 22d6 damage. it is a single slot for 22d6 damage, 10 rounds after everyone walked past it because you didn't detonate it at the only time when fireball is really useful (before everyone is mixed together, and while your enemy has not left the area). or, it is a single slot for 12d6 damage at the right time... exactly like a regular fireball would have given. except that it disrupts concentration on other spells even if you cast it instantly, making it worse than regular fireball.

also, on a side note... delayed blast fireball *casts* instantly. on your turn, you cast a spell, the fireball goes out to the point where it will detonate, and then you can either make it explode, or you can hold it (still in that location) and charge it up. so actually, my point still stands. not only is delayed blast fireball a terrible spell in 5e, but just like i said, it is not a spell where you sit there for a minute casting it before it goes off. it is a spell that you spend a second or two casting, and then it goes flying to its destination, and then you can choose to concentrate on it or not.

[BiPolar]

Sharkforce + Wunderkind, you two are arguing symantics over a single possibility of what a mage may or may not be doing. The issue isn't with DBF, it's that you shouldn't (although we all do) metagame when in battle. Yes, we may know more than our characters do about the enemies, their placements, etc. However, we should try and play it as honestly as we can. And yeah, that mage that doesn't seem to be doing anything currently dangerous? We have no idea what's really going on with that guy. And mages are dangerous. It's why they're in the back and protected by front line PCs. The goal of many intelligent enemies is to get through that line and hit the mage. There might not be an immediate danger right now, but the longer he stays up, the more risky the encounter is. Leave them untouched and suffer the consequences.

Ultimately, it also doesn't have much to do with my OP, either. The difficulty with PF seems to be how to handle it meta. There's first the question of whether or not the spell can convince somebody that physical effects are occuring and then there's the second question of how to do deal with it. An investigation check is a very purposeful stop, look, and listen. It means they've generally given on up on the main problem and are thinking of alternate solutions. At what point do they stop dealing directly with the phenomena and move to figure it out. And I think that's where the DM comes in to judge the quality of the PF description by the player and the intelligence of the target.

[Segev]

It's not metagaming to say, "Huh, I took 4 damage from that hideous, snarling monster, but 15 damage from that small rogue type fellow. I think I'd better prioritize the small rogue type fellow and hope the snarling monster doesn't do more to me in the future." As this racks up round by round to be 3, 4, 2, 6, 1, 5, 1, 3, 6 damage from the monster, and 12, 16, 10, 6, 10, 15, 8, 11, 11 damage from the rogue over the next 9 rounds, you will continue to prioritize the rogue!

Neither is it metagaming to say, "I bash my shoulder against the wooden wall of this box in which I am trapped as hard as I can." If the interpretation says that you really do throw your whole weight into it, and fall right through (because it isn't really there), you'll rationalize it as being shattered by your mighty shoulder. If the interpretation says that you THINK you throw your whole weight behind it, but your mind really tricks you into stopping, mime-style, then you'll rationalize it as being a totally solid wall you can't break down. The second is a far more useful spell.

[BiPolar]

It's not metagaming to say, "Huh, I took 4 damage from that hideous, snarling monster, but 15 damage from that small rogue type fellow. I think I'd better prioritize the small rogue type fellow and hope the snarling monster doesn't do more to me in the future." As this racks up round by round to be 3, 4, 2, 6, 1, 5, 1, 3, 6 damage from the monster, and 12, 16, 10, 6, 10, 15, 8, 11, 11 damage from the rogue over the next 9 rounds, you will continue to prioritize the rogue!

Neither is it metagaming to say, "I bash my shoulder against the wooden wall of this box in which I am trapped as hard as I can." If the interpretation says that you really do throw your whole weight into it, and fall right through (because it isn't really there), you'll rationalize it as being shattered by your mighty shoulder. If the interpretation says that you THINK you throw your whole weight behind it, but your mind really tricks you into stopping, mime-style, then you'll rationalize it as being a totally solid wall you can't break down. The second is a far more useful spell.

I agree with all of this. In the first case, yes, I absolutely would prioritize the thing hurting me more than the thing not. And allow it to continue doing so, unless I'd prefer to knock it out of the way so I can concentrate on the rogue and limit flanking (if you play with that rule.) But either way, it's also why the monster PF isn't as interesting as the the other options we've been discussing like in the second case (if it is ruled as the latter, that is.) If it isn't, then the spell is greatly diminished and is effectively a single person Hunters Mark/Hex type damage that you can't move to someone else after they die. And that definitely is pretty weak for a 2nd level illusion spell as compared to the first level hunters mark/hex that do the d6, let you move it upon death AND provide a secondary benefit.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I would say the box can't stop anyone from just stepping through it, and rationalize this as "there must have been a hinged panel" or something. Similarly, the dangling rope mentioned would completely fail to lift someone into the air, so they wouldn't have to do anything except think "haha, stupid noose missed me" and go on their way. I guess this contributes to me thinking the creature illusion could be more effective, relatively speaking (depending on situation obviously). If you can get someone to stand and swing at the only thing they think they're adjacent to for about as many rounds as a battle usually lasts, the spell's done its work.

I guess another question is: can the illusion provide "flanking" for a rogue? Crunchically no, fluffically I don't see why not.

[wunderkid]

Except damage isn't something your character knows about directly like that. The rogue could shiv you with a stiletto. Which by all accounts doesn't hurt that much but causes a lot of damage due to hitting internal organs (hence the point of sneak attack dice). The illusion could hit you with a great axe or set you on fire which doesn't do as much damage but hurts a lot more.

Damage is something the player knows not character, its almost impossible to not metagame when you know X does this much damage and Y doest this much damage. But it's still metagaming.

Like I said earlier more damage does not always equal more pain. Yes in a very general sense 1 damage hurts less than 3.

But when you get to 6+ damage we are talking enough to kill any normal person. So something that's lethal to 99% of the non hero world isnt painless just because your legend can survive it.

[SharkForce]

why would characters not know about how much damage they're taking?

[Segev]

Any that centers around the idea that the PC does not know that the rogue hurt him more with a sneak attack-augmented dagger than did the untrained wizard using a greatsword (with which he nevertheless hit) should be rejected. Hit points are an abstraction, but they're an abstraction of things of which the bearer is aware: how badly something hurt, how close it came to being lethal, how much dodging it took out of him, etc.


Phantasmal force explicitly provides all stimuli to simulate the phenomenon being created. A snare trap hoisting you into the air would have stimuli that convince you you are, in fact, up off the ground, swinging and dangling by one foot. There is no interpretation of the RAW which denies this. "Stupid rope missed me" wouldn't be a rationale for it when the stimulus is such that you feel yourself as hanging upside-down by your ankle. It's only if you try to do something with which the illusion disagrees that you get to rationalize why you succeeded when the illusion says you should have failed. And that's the more generous interpretation which would allow you to "smash through" the adamantine wall with your shoulder. (The less generous interpretation, which I favor, would have you bash your shoulder on the illusory wall as your mind convinces you it's there, so you don't actually move through it. You pantomime bashing your shoulder against it.)