Phantasmal Force - Rationalizing Other Damage

[Zarohk]

So, I've been playing a character with Phantasmal Force, and I had a quick question about how far the effect extends. If I create an illusion of a wall of spikes (metal spikes with a solid wall behind them) pressing towards an enemy, and our Fighter stabs through that wall with her glaive (1d10+strength modifier), does the creature…
1) Recognize that the damage is from a glaive?
> A. …and see through the illusion
> B. …and rationalize it as the wall having slits to poke a glaive through?
2) Not recognize the damage as coming from a glaive?
> C. and rationalize it as part of the illusion?

I know that the illusion of a wall of spike could deal 1d6 damage, but does other damage that the illusion make difficult or impossible break the illusion, get rationalized as coming through the illusion, or get viewed as part of the illusion?

[mephnick]

I'd rule that they recognize it was from a glaive, not the illusion, and that someone else interacting with the illusion would at least give the character a valid reason to use an action for an intelligence check to disbelieve. It's not the target interacting with the illusion at that point so I'd say it doesn't automatically have to rationalize how the glaive came through it and could cast doubt.

But this is getting into super murky 100% DM dependent ruling.

[Scathain]

But this is getting into super murky 100% DM dependent ruling.

This is the “correct” answer, as it really is DM dependent.
However, at my table, I’d have the enemy still rationalize the glaive attacking them (a hatch, large porthole, etc.) but if they are a semi-intelligent mob, they’d definitely Investigate their next turn, if not explicitly for the illusion, for a way to find the attacker.

[Galadhrim]

If I was making a ruling I think it would depend on the player that made the attack, and how they interacted with the illusion. If they tromped through the illusion and started stabbing, I think it would at least cast doubt on the illusion and the creature would have to make the check to see if it rationalizes or if it recognizes the illusion. (so #1 with a check for a or b)

If the other player was specifically trying to work with the illusion, I would make the creature not recognize it as coming from a glaive and rationalize it as part of the illusion. (#2)

I can see a player thinking that would be how it works and trying to be clever and creative. There is nothing I hate more than when a player tries to be clever and think creatively and the DM replies with, actually the exact opposite happens and it screws over your buddy, thanks for trying anyway.

[SharkForce]

based on my personal experience with this spell, the only thing that seems to remain consistent is that you don't want to get into a discussion about what it does, because the whole danged thing is about as clear as mud.

it works like your DM thinks it works. there is nowhere near enough clear wording to get a consistent ruling across a majority of DMs, and attempting any such thing will most likely end poorly.

and if you're the DM, decide what you think is an appropriate power level for the spell, try to come up with something reasonably consistent for your own games, and stick to that as best you can.

[Laserlight]

I'd rule it as they think someone poked the glaive through a slot in the wall. Fwiw

[Durazno]

Do you think it would make sense to give the attacker a slight penalty to try and work with the illusion and sell their glaive thrust as the wall's spikes?

[Scathain]

based on my personal experience with this spell, the only thing that seems to remain consistent is that you don't want to get into a discussion about what it does, because the whole danged thing is about as clear as mud.

it works like your DM thinks it works. there is nowhere near enough clear wording to get a consistent ruling across a majority of DMs, and attempting any such thing will most likely end poorly.

and if you're the DM, decide what you think is an appropriate power level for the spell, try to come up with something reasonably consistent for your own games, and stick to that as best you can.

Yeah, even as far as Illusion spells go Phantasmal Force is a toughy to rule on. I tell any player that picks it session 0 that if I rule inconsistently on it, it’s for the sake of convenience/fun.

[SharkForce]

Do you think it would make sense to give the attacker a slight penalty to try and work with the illusion and sell their glaive thrust as the wall's spikes?

how? the only person that can see it is the target (one of the few pieces of information about the spell that is clear), and i rather doubt the target is going to give you clear directions on where to put the glaive to make it appear to be the wall's spikes. even the caster can only really give you a rough description of what the illusion is, since they can't see it either.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you think it would make sense to give the attacker a slight penalty to try and work with the illusion and sell their glaive thrust as the wall's spikes?

No. Phantasmal Force is only in the victim's head. The attacker can't work with illusion it can't perceive.