Can Phanstasmal force grapple? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Porcupinata

2019-01-31, 05:33 AM

Nope.

But, it does make for a sticky situation. If you fall for the illusion you should think you are grappled and not move, but nothing is preventing it.

I had a player do that do me once, I had an illusion of a spiked vine tendril from the ground grab him- he ran on his turn. I had to improvise, and just said as he ran the tendril was still around him, wounding him, but was pulling out of the ground (kind of like a weed looks like with long roots).

Pretty much this. You can think you're grappled, but when you try to escape you will automatically succeed (and take 1d6 damage in the process) while rationalising what happened so it makes "sense".

In the situation you describe, I wouldn't have had the character think they're pulling the tendril. I'd have had them think that the spikes scratched them as they moved away, but more tendrils burst through the ground keeping up with their movement and grasping at them. The effect is the same, though. The "grapple" has no effect - it doesn't stop them moving - other than doing 1d6 damage to them.

Phantasmal Force makes you believe so hard that you psychically impose on yourself what the illusion physically cannot.

I'd say yes, make them roll for a wisdom save, if they fail they believe they're grappled until they are convinced otherwise.

Sure, the illusion can make them believe that they're grappled, but it can't actually stop them moving. So if they try to move, breaking the grapple, they will do so without needing any kind of roll. Which effectively means that the illusionary "grapple" is useless. Even if it appears to be heavy chains that the average person has no chance of breaking, as soon as the target pulls at them (and people will pull at them) they will realise that they can actually move after all and will rationalise that fact somehow.

Whiskeyjack8044

2019-01-31, 05:51 AM

Porcupinata

2019-01-31, 06:38 AM

It doesn't just look like they are grappled, it feels like it to. Sure it's not real but reality isn't really real either, it's just perception. The spell forces the affected person to perceive reality as the spellcaster wishes it.

Illusion magic hijacks the mind not just the eyes, and if your mind tells you you can't move, you can't move.

But at no point does the spell tell the target that they can't move.

At best, it tells them that they can feel (and see) some kind of barrier - chains, ropes, tentacles, roots, or whatever the caster decided on - surrounding them and pressing against them. But when they push back against that barrier, they'll discover they can in fact push it aside or break it (however their brain rationalises being able to move despite the barrier as - and it can be painful as they'll take 1d6 damage, perhaps imagining it to be from jagged edges as they "break through" the barrier) and they will find that they can move regardless of the barrier having been there.

Contrast

2019-01-31, 07:14 AM

Your best bet is to create something they may decide they don't want to interact with, like a large cage made of red hot iron or flame. If I suddenly found myself surrounded by a cage of red hot metal, my first thought would not be to try and interact with the red hot metal/fire. Of course if they spend their action wrapping something round their hands or the like they might give it a go and yes, if they try their luck they will find themselves able to escape.

The spell has many good uses but it is not particularly good at forcing people to stay still.

sophontteks

2019-01-31, 07:33 AM

As others said, it can make the creature think it is grappled, but most things would try to test their bindings. If they do, they would move even if they justify that they are still bound. The way around this is to somehow make dissuade the creature from testing the thing that binds them.

Effects of the mind are much easier to do. Blindness is the easiest, because the illusion can block their vision. Frightened is also pretty easy if you know anything about your target.

Outside of these conditions, the spell can also dissuade the target from participating in the fight. For all they know they are fighting the phantasm, and the phantasm could be you if you wanted.

PF is a spell that also gets stronger the more you know about the target. Like, what if you know the target is attached to a lost loved-one? You can create a phantasm of that loved-one. Even better, make that loved one blame them for their death. PF is nightmare fuel, and the more personal you can make it, the better.

Chronos

2019-01-31, 09:16 AM

RogueJK

2019-01-31, 09:49 AM

I heard a story once (I can't vouch for how true it is, I was a kid when I heard it) that I always think of when people argue about illusion magic.

Basicly, a guy gets locked in a refrigerated train car for a good while and freezes to death. Turns out the car was only like 50 degrees Fahrenheit, but he was so sure that he was going to freeze to death that he just kinda did.

Kinda OT, but 50 degree F is plenty low to cause death by hypothermia, given enough time. Yes, they didn't technically "freeze", since the temp was above 32 degrees. But prolonged exposure in cool temps of 60 and below (especially if wet or windy) are enough for the body's core temp to eventually drop below 92 degrees, resulting in confusions and delirium, then below 82 degrees, rendering them unconscious, and then further drop below 70 degrees which is fatal.

Contrast

2019-01-31, 09:59 AM

Someone who found themselves shackled with heavy chains probably won't try to break them, though, not unless they're extremely strong. Most people would instead try to find a lock to pick (in which case, they're out of luck unless you included a lock in the illusion, which you didn't need to), or call for help (in which case their allies are likely to be puzzled about what they're asking for help with).

Likewise, if you create the illusion of a creature grappling them: If they try to escape the grapple, they'll still perceive a creature grappling them, and so would conclude that their escape attempt failed. If, for some reason, they attempted to move without first escaping the grapple, they could, but why would they attempt that?

They may try to move with the heavy chains (particularly if you've cast this on them in the middle of some otherwise life threatening situation) and while they are likely to find it exhausting to the tune of 1d6 damage they would definitely find themselves able to move.

Regarding the grapple - the moment they tried to pull away they would find their opponent unable to exert any meaningful force to prevent them beyond what they were presumably already expecting in terms of attacks of opportunity. Or to put it another way if I was running to pour a healing potion down another party members throat and the DM told me that chains suddenly burst out of the ground and wrapped around me and I asked if I could try and pull against them to still reach my friend and the DM told me I was meta-gaming because why would I bother testing the chains, they looked pretty solid, I would give him a very confused look.

Really the lesson here is its more sensible to design the illusions such that the target doesn't quickly realise they can just ignore it if they're happy to be inconvenienced by 1d6 damage a turn.

JackPhoenix

2019-01-31, 10:01 AM

Segev

2019-01-31, 11:46 AM

As a general rule, if they've failed their save and haven't succeeded the investigation check, I would argue that a creature subject to a phantasmal force is unable to voluntarily take actions that would break the illusion. By this, I mean that they can't punch their way through a "stone wall;" their own muscles and mind stop their hand from extending and their brain tells them they punched an unmoving stone barrier full force (and take 1d6 damage).

They CAN take actions that don't, themselves, break the illusion but which lead to outside forces doing so for them. For instance, they could sit on an illusory chair, and when they release their weight to entrust the chair, their subconscious will do its best to hold them up, but unless they're athletes capable of balancing in a "seated" position with no chair, the "chair" will break beneath them and they'll fall. They can walk onto an illusory bridge and fall through it. But they can't pull on an illusory chain anchoring them to a stone wall and pull it out; they believe they're trying with all their might, but their voluntary motion leaves them halting.

If a friend came along and pulled them away from the wall, they'd feel their arm being wrenched and the manacle digging in (probably taking 1d6 damage), but they'd perceive their friend pulling the chain out of the wall, or breaking it, or something, assuming their friend could overpower their subconscious efforts to stay within "bounds."

Vogie

2019-01-31, 11:52 AM

I don't know about grapple, but if they wanted to use Phantasmal Force like 4e's Phantom Chasm (knocked prone as the target thinks they're falling down a pit), I'd be cool with it. Even though they would physically have their back on the ground, they'd have their hands in the air as they feel like they're falling, and randomly hitting roots or rocks on their way down.

Contrast

2019-01-31, 01:16 PM

Snip

Player: I summon a solid unbreakable unmoving container which is perfectly fitted to their size so they are completely trapped and can't move or see. It's also filled with acid or something I guess.

So you would have them be completely incapable of escaping that box and they'd also be blind and paralysed? It actually seems more powerful that Banishment, a 4th level spell, in that your allies can still attack them (with advantage no less) and an Investigation check is usually better than a save (no legendary resistance), plus damage. Only weakness is true sight and the fact that the enemy needs to be able to fit inside a 10ft cube. It will even compare pretty favourably to forcecage in quite a few situations (you could literally use it to just summon what looks like a smaller forcecage with your ruling).

Segev

2019-01-31, 03:29 PM

Player: I summon a solid unbreakable unmoving container which is perfectly fitted to their size so they are completely trapped and can't move or see. It's also filled with acid or something I guess.

So you would have them be completely incapable of escaping that box and they'd also be blind and paralysed? It actually seems more powerful that Banishment, a 4th level spell, in that your allies can still attack them (with advantage no less) and an Investigation check is usually better than a save (no legendary resistance), plus damage. Only weakness is true sight and the fact that the enemy needs to be able to fit inside a 10ft cube. It will even compare pretty favourably to forcecage in quite a few situations (you could literally use it to just summon what looks like a smaller forcecage with your ruling).

Granted, though "others can shove them out of it" is a pretty big downside if there's any teamwork going on.

And with the alternative, the spell is next to useless. 1d6 damage per round that you Concentrate and he cooperates by holding still is pretty pathetic for a 2nd level spell, and that's all it is if there's no enforcement of behaving like the illusion is real. "Oh, he doesn't realize it's not real, but he still walks through the bars because he tried to bend them open and it worked for some strange reason!"

JackPhoenix

2019-01-31, 04:18 PM

Granted, though "others can shove them out of it" is a pretty big downside if there's any teamwork going on.

And with the alternative, the spell is next to useless. 1d6 damage per round that you Concentrate and he cooperates by holding still is pretty pathetic for a 2nd level spell, and that's all it is if there's no enforcement of behaving like the illusion is real. "Oh, he doesn't realize it's not real, but he still walks through the bars because he tried to bend them open and it worked for some strange reason!"

That's why you make the bars look like they're on fire or something else that will make the target avoid touching them.

Phantasmal Force is great spell, but you should think a little before you decide how to use it. It can't inflict any conditions. Using it in a way that requires it to do things it can't do and then complaining it doesn't work is like throwing Fireball at a fire elemental and then complaining you haven't done any damage.

cZak

2019-01-31, 06:45 PM

A d6/ round Concentration is kind of piddly (Dust devil, Flaming sphere, etc...)

If the phantasm is just a guy w a sword hitting, it makes some sense.
A flaming cage around the creature makes sense, but who's going to stay in it? They'll throw themselves at the bars in an attempt to break through and... their out. They will reason that their force was sufficient to bend the flaming bars, so it's a one round distraction.

If it's an ogre come crashing out of the underbush and he grabs the guy, the guy breaks the grapple (cause there's no physical limitation) but the ogre moves with him and basically reapplies the grapple (on my turn I guess...) it's a rinse & repeat that potentially keeps the guy locked down for a minute

Maelynn

2019-01-31, 07:16 PM

Phantasmal Force is a very powerful form of hypnotism. If a creature created by the spell were to attempt a grapple, then the target would definitely feel the arms around him:

the phantasm includes sound, temperature, and other stimuli

'other stimuli' includes the sense of touch. The target really can feel a sensation as though something is touching/holding him. Plenty of examples found in hypnotism shows, where people swore they felt something like a hand put on their shoulder.

So if he were to move out of the grapple, then to him it would be logical he'd have to put effort in - he can't just walk out, don't be silly, he has to succeed on the necessary Athletics/Acrobatics check. If he fails, he'll firmly believe he's still stuck. And just like with hypnotism, it's very well possible for the body to surrender to whatever the mind believes: a man who is hyptonised to believe a suitcase is filled with bricks is unable to lift it, even though the suitcase really is empty.

while a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalises any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm

Ergo, if he were to move a square he'd still believe he's grappled - he'll rationalise that he was merely moved forward (shoved) by the creature grappling him. He won't believe he has escaped the grapple, he won't suddeny see through the illusion (that's what the Investigation check is for), he will simply reason that both the grappler and him have moved a square.

It can't inflict any conditions.

I disagree; the spell can deal 1d6 psychic damage per round if the phantasm is something that the target believes can hurt him, such as a fire or a pool of lava. The spell description says 'the target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion', so a 'burn' condition can certainly be applied.

Segev

2019-01-31, 07:19 PM

That's why you make the bars look like they're on fire or something else that will make the target avoid touching them.

Phantasmal Force is great spell, but you should think a little before you decide how to use it. It can't inflict any conditions. Using it in a way that requires it to do things it can't do and then complaining it doesn't work is like throwing Fireball at a fire elemental and then complaining you haven't done any damage.

Except that they still can just force their way through the flaming bars. It's only 1d6 damage, and they may be willing to risk it to get free.

The trouble with phantasmal force is that it isn't worth it for the damage it does, and its damage is actually rather unconvincing. The best use I've found for it is a VERY poor man's major image, used on somebody when they're entirely alone, with nobody to see that they're interacting with thin air. Then it's almost worth the spell slot, because it provides sensory input beyond visual.

But no DM I've found has ever failed - no matter how much they aren't the sort in general to let metaknowledge get in the way - to find ways and reasons to negate phantasmal force by simply moving away from it, unless they agree that the person's belief keeps them from breaking it that way. Leaving the only effect it has be 1d6 psychic damage per round, which is most definitely not worth your Concentration, let alone a 2nd level spell slot.

cZak

2019-01-31, 07:32 PM

- he can't just walk out, he has to succeed on the necessary Athletics/Acrobatics check

Ergo, if he were to move a square he'd still believe he's grappled - he'll rationalise that he was merely moved forward (shoved) by the creature grappling him. He won't believe he has escaped the grapple, he won't suddeny see through the illusion (that's what the Investigation check is for), he will simply reason that both the grappler and him have moved a square.

I don't think he can fail the Athletics/Acrobatics check... There is no physical limitation
He's making the attempt, so he must believe it's possible, so he'll succeed; there is no physical effect stopping him.

I'm playing devil's advocate here...
It's my character/spell. I want it to be effective. I'm just trying to find a way it's better than a one round distraction for 1d6 damage

The trouble with phantasmal force is that it isn't worth it for the damage it does, and its damage is actually rather unconvincing.
Leaving the only effect it has be 1d6 psychic damage per round, which is most definitely not worth your Concentration, let alone a 2nd level spell slot.

This is the gist
Illusions are potentially incredibly powerful in their versatility & the targeted save.
But this is a single target. If I can't inflict some battlefield control or Debuff then I should just pick Heat metal or Flaming sphere.

Silent image (Level 1) could be a 15cuft smoking cloud I can move anywhere within 60' of me. With a code word, the party has a good chance to see thru & gain some tactical advantage.

Roleplay situation or such, it's got potential for harassing some NPC or haunting a place to scare off people/critters/ mobile XP. I'll have fun with that :)

sophontteks

2019-01-31, 07:41 PM

I love PF but all my love comes from using it with subtle spell, which IMO is essential. Its a great spell for a sorcerer who has limited slots, because its versitile, and with subtle it can be used well outside of combat applications. Sometimes the more mundane uses fly under the radar. It doesn't need to deal damage or incapacitate an enemy. It could just be used to, for example, fool an authority into thinking you have proper identification, or dissuading a fight by distracting the leader.

cZak

2019-01-31, 07:43 PM

{Scrubbed}

Chronos

2019-01-31, 08:11 PM

Yes, if the DM ignores the rules for what the spell does, then the spell isn't very useful. But the book specifically says that the victim will rationalize away any inconsistencies. If someone thinks they're grappled, and tries to squirm out of it, they will still feel like there's someone grappling them, and so they'll rationalize that the grappler must have succeeded on the opposed check. Or maybe they'll think that they got out for a moment, but that the grappler grabbed them again immediately. Or even if they see someone walking through the illusion, they'll still come up with some explanation: Maybe the illusion moved out of the way. Or maybe the grappler is a spectral undead that's only partially solid (hey, that sort of thing exists in a D&D world).

It's still not a total lockdown. The victim might still rationally decide that, even though that monster or whatever is real, that the wizard who cast it is still a greater threat. Heck, he might even conclude that whatever the illusion is was something real that was conjured by the wizard, and that the best way to deal with it is to break the wizard's concentration (which would, in fact, be a viable way of dealing with the spell). The caster still needs to decide what illusion to make that'll be effective, which will depend on knowing something about the target. But it's still one of the better 2nd-level spells, if the DM doesn't ignore the rules.

SirVladamir

2019-01-31, 09:45 PM

Phantasms are not illusions. Interacting with an illusion is enough to prove to the observer that it isn't real. Not the case with phantasms.

The character believes they are restrained, they can struggle and their mind will convince them that they are encountering resistance. It is up to the DM to keep the spell appropriate in power to other 2nd level concentration spells. I would reward creativity but also not allow anything too drastic. I would probably restrict the spell to allow for 1 condition but nothing more. I would also allow an investigation check as a reaction to any outside stimuli, say an attack from a different source.

RSP

2019-02-01, 07:58 AM

Phantasms are not illusions. Interacting with an illusion is enough to prove to the observer that it isn't real. Not the case with phantasms.

There are no general rules stating such for “illusions.” Some spells from the illusion school have rules of what happens when you physically interact with them, others don’t.

You’re making a faulty assumption that since some illusion spells have rules for what happens when physically interacting with them, then all spells that state they create an illusion have those same rules. This is wrong: each spell describes what it’s rules are; if a spell doesn’t include that physical interaction bit, then it doesn’t have that rule.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-01, 11:17 AM

I disagree; the spell can deal 1d6 psychic damage per round if the phantasm is something that the target believes can hurt him, such as a fire or a pool of lava. The spell description says 'the target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion', so a 'burn' condition can certainly be applied.

There's no "burn" condition, and damage isn't a condition, it's just damage. Even if there WAS such condition, Phantasmal Force wouldn't cause it, because it's not the function of the spell, and there's no fire damage involved, PF causes psychic damage. It may be of some interest that creatures vulnerable and resistant to fire would both take the same 1d6 psychic damage, as while they perceive that damage as fire, it is *not* actually fire, but fire IMMUNE creatures wouldn't, because "the phantasm can deal 1d6 psychic damage to the target if it is in the phantasm’s area or within 5 feet of the phantasm, provided that the illusion is of a creature or hazard that could logically deal damage, such as by attacking", and fire wouldn't deal any damage to them even if it was real.

Except that they still can just force their way through the flaming bars. It's only 1d6 damage, and they may be willing to risk it to get free.

The trouble with phantasmal force is that it isn't worth it for the damage it does, and its damage is actually rather unconvincing. The best use I've found for it is a VERY poor man's major image, used on somebody when they're entirely alone, with nobody to see that they're interacting with thin air. Then it's almost worth the spell slot, because it provides sensory input beyond visual.

But no DM I've found has ever failed - no matter how much they aren't the sort in general to let metaknowledge get in the way - to find ways and reasons to negate phantasmal force by simply moving away from it, unless they agree that the person's belief keeps them from breaking it that way. Leaving the only effect it has be 1d6 psychic damage per round, which is most definitely not worth your Concentration, let alone a 2nd level spell slot.

If you think that reacting to a flaming cage appearing around you by attempting to squeeze through or grabbing and bending the red hot (and propably spiky, because why not) bars is completely sane and reasonable course of action, the problem doesn't lie in the spell. That's not limited to illusions, it's like if a caster used Create Bonfire between himself and the enemy, and the enemy's reaction was "I should walk right into the flames, because going around would require me to take Dash action to reach the caster, and I wouldn't be unable to attack this turn. It's only d8 damage anyway". Acceptable when it's a mindless zombie or raging orc berserker doing that, but if a cowardly goblin or wild animal tried it, I WOULD express my disbelief to the GM.

If you've taken PF for damage, you've made a bad choice. It's the versatility and potential for both damage and control that make this spell good, but you shouldn't use it as a blunt instrument and do the same thing again and again and expect it to work every single time. If you create a burning cage, it's to keep the enemy from moving and any damage is a happy bonus, but the enemy may decide getting third degree burns from an attempt to escape being slowly cooked alive is worth it. If you create a phantasmal creature of some kind, you may cause the enemy to spend the battle by attacking empty air, or at least wasting action to disengage from non-existing foe, and as a creature would be able of movement, just walking away won't stop the damage. You may use it out of combat to make the victim seem crazy, as it reacts to things that don't exist, like freaking out because they think there are spiders crawling all over them during royal feast. Different enviroments, situations and targets require different things. And yes, it doesn't work 100% of time. No spell does.

Segev

2019-02-01, 11:39 AM

If you think that reacting to a flaming cage appearing around you by attempting to squeeze through or grabbing and bending the red hot (and propably spiky, because why not) bars is completely sane and reasonable course of action, the problem doesn't lie in the spell. That's not limited to illusions, it's like if a caster used Create Bonfire between himself and the enemy, and the enemy's reaction was "I should walk right into the flames, because going around would require me to take Dash action to reach the caster, and I wouldn't be unable to attack this turn. It's only d8 damage anyway". Acceptable when it's a mindless zombie or raging orc berserker doing that, but if a cowardly goblin or wild animal tried it, I WOULD express my disbelief to the GM.It is amazing how often monsters "test" illusions the DM knows are illusions, but don't bother "testing" non-illusory effects. Sometimes this happens even with DMs I otherwise trust not to metagame, because it is HARD to react to illusions that you know are fake as if you believe them to be real. You're now not just asking yourself, "How would this character react to this situation?" but also, "How would this character react if he didn't know this was an illusion?" It shouldn't, you'd think, make any difference, but I know from experience that it does.

So the problem does lie with the DM, but it is also something that can be solved by having a preconceived notion of how things work. Hence my having an explanation in place as to how I think phantasmal force should interact with voluntary vs. involuntary motion on the part of the victim.

If you've taken PF for damage, you've made a bad choice.Obviously. Its damage is cosmetic, for the most part; something to help 'sell' the illusion as actually being a dangerous thingie.

It's the versatility and potential for both damage and control that make this spell good, but you shouldn't use it as a blunt instrument and do the same thing again and again and expect it to work every single time. If you create a burning cage, it's to keep the enemy from moving and any damage is a happy bonus, but the enemy may decide getting third degree burns from an attempt to escape being slowly cooked alive is worth it. If you create a phantasmal creature of some kind, you may cause the enemy to spend the battle by attacking empty air, or at least wasting action to disengage from non-existing foe, and as a creature would be able of movement, just walking away won't stop the damage. You may use it out of combat to make the victim seem crazy, as it reacts to things that don't exist, like freaking out because they think there are spiders crawling all over them during royal feast. Different enviroments, situations and targets require different things. And yes, it doesn't work 100% of time. No spell does.
Indeed, using it out of combat seems the most reliable effect, though it requires getting the victim alone or otherwise being able to pass off his reactions to it as natural to those who are unaware of the illusion.

sophontteks

2019-02-01, 11:54 AM

Segev

2019-02-01, 01:53 PM

Use it out of combat with subtle and the spell becomes a very effective 10d6 damage level 2 spell that will create all sorts of chaos.

In 5e a round is only 6 seconds, so out of combat the victim only has 1 minute to react to the full damage of the spell.

And with a helpless opponent, witch bolt is an excellent damage spell for its spell slot, too. :smallamused:

The damage cannot be the primary purpose of the spell; it has to be an effective illusion, as well. Otherwise, it's not worth preparing.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-01, 02:03 PM

It doesn't just look like they are grappled, it feels like it to. Sure it's not real but reality isn't really real either, it's just perception.

:smallconfused:

No.

Chronos

2019-02-01, 09:55 PM

Well, you wouldn't prepare it just for the damage. But having prepared it, you might occasionally cast it just (or primarily) for the damage, because that happens to be what some unusual situation calls for.

TheUser

2019-02-02, 06:59 PM

Lets look at the actual spell shall we?

The phantasm includes sound, temperature, and other stimuli, also evident only to the creature.
...

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

If you, a character, believed you were really being grappled you would not try to run because you think your movespeed is 0.

So now that you believe your speed was zero, you would either 1) spend your action attempting to escape the grapple 2) attack but stay put 3) use your action to investigate.

Coffee_Dragon

2019-02-02, 07:46 PM

Lets look at the actual spell shall we?

If you, a character, believed you were really being grappled you would not try to run because you think your movespeed is 0.

You say "look at the spell" and then follow up with a claim that is decidedly not in the spell?

Corran

2019-02-02, 08:07 PM

So now that you believe your speed was zero, you would either 1) spend your action attempting to escape the grapple 2) attack but stay put 3) use your action to investigate.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that 3 is not a real option at least in theory (since the affected target of the spell believes that the illusion is sth real). So the target may choose to do 1 or 2 in theory, though in game terms, whatever the target actually decides to do (that involves the illusion) translates to an investigation check (3). Or at least that's how I would run it (not claiming this is RAW, not sure if this is RAW, but I think that's an elegant way to rule for the affected target of PF).

Chronos

2019-02-02, 08:19 PM

I think the investigation check would only come up if someone were to say "Hey, Bob, that monster you think you're fighting is only an illusion!". Or maybe if, for some reason, the victim's natural reaction to the thing the illusion is of would be to investigate it. Like, if you showed my old character an illusion of an ancient spellbook, that just might be enough to hold his attention... except then he'd go flipping through the index and so on, which would be an Investigation check.

cZak

2019-03-04, 09:53 AM

You say "look at the spell" and then follow up with a claim that is decidedly not in the spell?

I follow what he's saying...
Seems a natural conclusion to the intent of the phantasm
If it was an actual creature doing the grappling, those would be your logical alternatives

Just curious what you don't see missing

Segev

2019-03-04, 11:16 AM

I follow what he's saying...
Seems a natural conclusion to the intent of the phantasm
If it was an actual creature doing the grappling, those would be your logical alternatives

Just curious what you don't see missing

This brings us to the crux of why illusions are so iffy in games. The GM knows they're illusions. He has to. And escaping that meta-knowledge is hard.

"What would my NPC/creature do if the wizard here had really summoned this over-muscled gorilla and had it grapple said NPC/creature?" is the question he should be asking. The NPC/creature, for all intents and purposes, thinks the gorilla is real. He sees it, hears it's grunts and the sursurus of its fur against his armor, feels it grabbing him, smells it, and may even taste it if he attempts to bite the thing for some reason.

So, let's say that the response is the same whether it's a phantasmal force or a summon monster: the NPC/creature attempts to escape the grapple. This seems a reasonable response.

Now, if the gorilla were really there, summoned by a wizard, there'd be stats for determining whether the NPC/creature can escape the grapple or not. Roll dice, compare numbers, determine result.

The illusion not only lacks those stats, but can in theory cause the gorilla to be stronger and better than a real one would be. Alternatively, it could, in theory, fail to hold the NPC/creature at all, and the "rationalization" for why he can flail himself away is that he managed to break the grapple and run. So...where is the real, most balanced and fair way to rule this?

One way to do it would be to rule that, yes, he automatically "escapes" the grapple, and rationalizes that just fine before moving away. But that still consumed his action, and the phantasmal force just follows him and resumes it, so he's not actually escaping to DO anything other than keep retreating in a particular direction. Not sure that's the most balanced or fair solution, but it's one way to do it.

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-04, 11:17 AM

Just curious what you don't see missing

Do you look at the spell and see references to grappling and movement rates?

Segev

2019-03-04, 11:23 AM

Do you look at the spell and see references to grappling and movement rates?

Nope! What they see is that the subject perceives the illusion with all senses, and rationalizes discrepencies.

So, what do you rule happens if a phantasmal force of a gorilla grapples the target?

JackPhoenix

2019-03-04, 01:49 PM

Nope! What they see is that the subject perceives the illusion with all senses, and rationalizes discrepencies.

So, what do you rule happens if a phantasmal force of a gorilla grapples the target?

Considering the target isn't actually grappled, he rationalizes why he escaped. Just like he rationalizes why he fell through phantasmal bridge that can't actually support his weight.

Segev

2019-03-04, 02:43 PM

Considering the target isn't actually grappled, he rationalizes why he escaped. Just like he rationalizes why he fell through phantasmal bridge that can't actually support his weight.

Fair enough. Just means the spell is useless, since the net effect is, "Nothing happens, and the target pretends something happened that was ultimately inconsequential, but functionally ignores the spell."

JackPhoenix

2019-03-04, 02:50 PM

Fair enough. Just means the spell is useless, since the net effect is, "Nothing happens, and the target pretends something happened that was ultimately inconsequential, but functionally ignores the spell."

Not really. It just means you'll need to take its limitations into account and think before you use it.

cZak

2019-03-04, 02:51 PM

Considering the target isn't actually grappled, he rationalizes why he escaped. Just like he rationalizes why he fell through phantasmal bridge that can't actually support his weight.

How about the inverse

He fails his Investigation check & remains grappled, rationalizing that the creature is too strong for him to escape

JackPhoenix

2019-03-04, 02:54 PM

How about the inverse

He fails his Investigation check & remains grappled, rationalizing that the creature is too strong for him to escape

He can't remain grappled if he wasn't grappled in the first place. He may feel like there's a gorilla sitting on him, but if he struggles, he'll find nothing hinders his movement. Best case scenario, he'll move wherever he wants to, and think the gorilla moved with him.

cZak

2019-03-04, 02:58 PM

He can't remain grappled if he wasn't grappled in the first place. He may feel like there's a gorilla sitting on him, but if he struggles, he'll find nothing hinders his movement. Best case scenario, he'll move wherever he wants to, and think the gorilla moved with him.

Chicken vs egg

The spell imprints on the creature's mind the effect
This is what the saving throw/check establishes as what's possible. The spell imprints on his mind that he is grappled and unable to move. If his mind cannot break that impression (the required saving throw difficulty) he cannot move

Segev

2019-03-04, 02:59 PM

Not really. It just means you'll need to take its limitations into account and think before you use it.

The trouble is that literally everything I've ever "thought about it's limitations" to come up with, it's clear that phantasmal force still fails to do anything.

Create an illusion of a bridge? They're under no obligation to try to cross it. Especially if their buddies tell them it's not there. Besides, why are you resorting to that to hurt people, rather than just casting a damaging spell that doesn't rely on them specifically wanting to cross whatever obstacle you've put the bridge over?

Create an illusion of a creature? They walk away. Why stand and fight it, even if they'd do so with a real creature, when this one can't leave its 10 foot square and any excuse can be made up to walk away. That gorilla can't grapple you if you move away, after all.

A cage? Walk through the bars. Sure, you rationalize that you busted through them, maybe taking 1d6 damage, but obviously anybody would do that, right? Nobody would be fooled into banging ineffectually on the bars.

Fog? They won't stay in it.

Fire? Ditto.

Their buddy stabbing them in the back and taunting them? No, no, the spell doesn't say you can convince them that their friends have turned on them, so the illusion of their friend attacking them obviously isn't allowed, even though their friend is a creature and a creature attacking them is perfectly reasonable.

A wall between you and them? They obviously run up and try to climb it, and find themselves falling through (not down the same side or anything), and/or bust straight through it and rationalize it as flimsy or themselves as strong. They wouldn't try to go around.

A wall of FIRE between you and them? They test it, of course, and find taht 1d6 isn't so bad for running right through it. Maybe if it was real fire they'd behave differently, but it's not.

The answer to the other thread, "What can you do with phantasmal force?" appears to be "nothing that actually accomplishes more than 1d6 damage, once."

TheUser

2019-03-04, 05:31 PM

Perhaps if you gauge it against other level 2 spells it becomes easy to see that applying the grappled condition to the creature is in fact, perfectly balanced.

Web? Restrain up to 4 creatures.

Heat Metal? 2d8 damage with a bonus action and disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks; if done on armor they can't even save against its effects, only its damage (go read the spell and look at sage advice if you have doubts).

Maximillian's Earthen Grasp? 2d6 damage and restrained.

Suggestion? 1 sentence mind control for 8 hours with no additional saves...

So yeah. Phantasmal Force grapples a creature? The creature really feels and thinks they are grappled. They will writhe and struggle like they are being held down until they investigate the illusion away.

I would even say you could have the phantasm grab them by the face and blind them as well.

Why? Because the blindness/deafness spell doesn't require concentration.

MaxWilson

2019-03-04, 05:34 PM

Just as the title says

Sure, it can try, but it will auto-fail all of its grapple checks, and the target will rationalize that away as "I'm getting really lucky today!" just as they will rationalize away being e.g. hit by a (phantasmal) Fire Giant's greatsword multiple times and only taking 1d6 damage. It will never occur to the target that maybe the grappler doesn't really exist.

Segev

2019-03-04, 05:40 PM

Sure, it can try, but it will auto-fail all of its grapple checks, and the target will rationalize that away as "I'm getting really lucky today!" just as they will rationalize away being e.g. hit by a (phantasmal) Fire Giant's greatsword multiple times and only taking 1d6 damage. It will never occur to the target that maybe the grappler doesn't really exist.

But it also won't actually matter, since he can walk right past or away from the grappler without consequence.

MaxWilson

2019-03-04, 05:49 PM

But it also won't actually matter, since he can walk right past or away from the grappler without consequence.

Yes. That's what happens when a grappler fails all of its grapple checks.

Segev

2019-03-04, 05:51 PM

Yes. That's what happens when a grappler fails all of its grapple checks.

And when you do anything with phantasmal force, apparently.

MaxWilson

2019-03-04, 06:04 PM

And when you do anything with phantasmal force, apparently.

Oh, I dunno. If you can e.g. fool a beholder into zapping a phantasmal raging Zealot Barbarian who just refuses to die instead of zapping a PC, that could save somebody's life. It's not that different from any other illusion really except for the "rationalization" clause, which means that unlike a Major Image, the beholder won't necessarily just switch targets when the "barbarian" isn't killed by a Death Ray. (Also, because the illusion is in the beholder's mind, it's possible that unlike a Major Image it will continue to function even when the beholder perceives the barbarian as being within an antimagic zone. Ask your DM.)

Don't think of Phantasmal Force as a spell which is supposed to do things. Think of it as a spell for fooling enemies into doing the wrong things. But you need some creativity and knowledge of your enemy's state of mind.

Segev

2019-03-04, 06:07 PM

Oh, I dunno. If you can e.g. fool a beholder into zapping a phantasmal raging Zealot Barbarian who just refuses to die instead of zapping a PC, that could save somebody's life. It's not that different from any other illusion really except for the "rationalization" clause, which means that unlike a Major Image, the beholder won't necessarily just switch targets when the "barbarian" isn't killed by a Death Ray. (Also, because the illusion is in the beholder's mind, it's possible that unlike a Major Image it will continue to function even when the beholder perceives the barbarian as being within an antimagic zone. Ask your DM.)

Don't think of Phantasmal Force as a spell which is supposed to do things. Think of it as a spell for fooling enemies into doing the wrong things. But you need some creativity and knowledge of your enemy's state of mind.

The raging barbarian isn't actually impeding the beholder in the slightest, so the beholder ignores it and focuses on others.

The trouble is that anything you can list, if it in no way actually inconveniences the target, is at best a one-round wasted action before the target ignores, bypasses, or escapes it by virtue of nothing actually stopping them. Since tihs cost the caster his own action and a second level spell slot, this is actively worse than 3e's daze, which cost a 0th level spell slot and the caster's action to deny the target a single round of action.

MaxWilson

2019-03-04, 06:11 PM

The raging barbarian isn't actually impeding the beholder in the slightest, so the beholder ignores it and focuses on others.

Does it really? Well then you chose your illusion poorly.

It's not obvious to me that it would ignore the raging barbarian, but maybe you're imagining a different version of the scenario in your head than I was.

Remember that the beholder's actions will be dictated not by what the humans have already done, but by what it thinks they are about to do... and Phantasmal Force prevents it from extrapolating correctly from past to future. "That barbarian missed me with his axe twice" does not imply "the barbarian is incapable of harming me."

Ganymede

2019-03-04, 06:13 PM

Under no circumstance can Phantasmal Force apply the grappled condition.

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-04, 06:20 PM

So, what do you rule happens if a phantasmal force of a gorilla grapples the target?

At no time does a phantasmal gorilla grapple a target because it's neither a creature with a generic grapple option nor a spell effect that resolves using the grapple mechanism.

What happens when PF is cast with the "hostile gorilla" option is that a gorilla appears to aggrieve the target but clearly doesn't end up restraining it.

Segev

2019-03-04, 06:25 PM

Does it really? Well then you chose your illusion poorly.

It's not obvious to me that it would ignore the raging barbarian, but maybe you're imagining a different version of the scenario in your head than I was.

Given all the other reasons phantasmal force would fail to keep anybody busy for more than a round, of course the Beholder ignores the barbarian. The barbarian can't shoot an arrow or throw anything outside of his 10-ft. cube, so can't even deal 1d6 psychic damage. The barbarian can't leave his 10-foot cube, so the Beholder just has to fly away from him. As long as there's any other combatants actually doing anything, why would the beholder waste his eye-beam on the barbarian rather than something actually threatening?

"You chose your illusion poorly if it isn't keeping them occupied for more than 1 round" is a trite platitude, but when every possible illusion you can choose is "choosing your illusion poorly," it begins to sound like the spell is useless.

So either the spell is useless, or these interpretations that forbid any sort of mental block on the part of the target that prevents him from taking superhuman action to escape what he perceives to be seriously solid barriers or restraints or the like (in addition to other things) are all overzealous efforts to prevent abusing the spell.

Personally, I think there is a mental block effect. That is, if he sees an illusion of a wall, the target will pantomime hammering at it but not actually go through, because HE feels himself hitting it, even though he's actually hitting nothing. If he's chained to a stake in the ground, he'll yank and tug on that stake, again like a mime, and be unable to pull it free. If he's grappled by a gorilla, he will be unable to free himself, because the illusory gorilla will always manage to have him in its grip while he's in the spell's AOE, so he's writhing around and grappling an invisible foe as far as others are concerned.

I'd probably allow various checks that meet the Investigation DC to trigger an actual Investigation check, with the idea being that he "should" have a chance to recognize that he "should" have gotten free. That's just a ruling, though, not in the rules.

I would also say that the "rationalize impossibilities" thing uses "falling through an illusory bridge" for a reason: he tried to do something that no amount of mental block could force him to "fail" to do. Hammer on a wall? He can stop his hands in mid-air. But step on a bridge that isn't there? He'll fall. Similarly, trying to sit on a rock or a chair that isn't there will leave him collapsing to the ground, rationalizing the chair as breaking or slipping off the rock. But leaning on it? He'll pantomime, keeping his own balance without noticing.

If he's dragged away from the cage by a friend, he'll see the friend enter the cage in some fashion, and drag him out in a similar one. (Maybe his friend bent the bars in passing, and pulled him out through the opening.) But it has to be something mostly involuntary: his body is forced, outside of his direct control, to undergo motion that the illusion would prevent.

Not "he tried something and found no resistance," but rather, "he was put into a position where external forces would have been opposed by the illusion, and the real external forces won." The boundary is at whether he CAN voluntarily stop the action opposed by the illusion. He CAN voluntarily stop moving his leg when he reaches the end of a chain manacled to his ankle; he cannot voluntarily stop his friend from dragging him further than the chain reaches. He can voluntarily stop his hands in mid-air when he clings to and even thinks he's leaning on or trying to bend the bars of a cage. He cannot voluntarily stop gravity from pulling him down when he commits himself to sit on a chair or walk on a bridge that isn't there.

Chronos

2019-03-04, 06:35 PM

OK, so instead of a raging barbarian, make the illusion for the beholder a sharpshooting archer. Or, heck, another beholder: Beholders hate each other.

MaxWilson

2019-03-04, 06:42 PM

Given all the other reasons phantasmal force would fail to keep anybody busy for more than a round, of course the Beholder ignores the barbarian. The barbarian can't shoot an arrow or throw anything outside of his 10-ft. cube, so can't even deal 1d6 psychic damage. The barbarian can't leave his 10-foot cube, so the Beholder just has to fly away from him. As long as there's any other combatants actually doing anything, why would the beholder waste his eye-beam on the barbarian rather than something actually threatening?

Two things here:

(1) I don't see any restriction in the spell about movement. "You craft an illusion that takes root in the mind of a creature that you can see within range... On a failed save, you create a phantasmal object, creature, or other visible phenomenon of your choice that is no larger than a 10-foot cube and that is perceivable only to the target for the duration... 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." I see nothing there about the imaginary creature remaining stationary.

(2) Flying away will incur an opportunity attack unless the beholder Disengages, and if it does hooray! you made it waste an action. Depending on the environment geometry, flying 20' may or may not be able to get it out of range anyway because it will just expect the Barbarian to follow if he can, if he is already in range. Why not just kill the Barbarian instead (or charm him) and THEN fly away?

But let's say for the sake of argument that a beholder would ignore a raging barbarian in favor of another PC. Again, that just means you chose poorly. Maybe it would have been better to create an illusionary wizard to encourage it to point its antimagic ray in that direction, or a phantasmal archer. The key point here is that the beholder "treats the phantasm as if it were real" and rationalizes away any illogical points. You should have a pretty good idea of what beholders and other bad guys do against real things, because you and your fellow PCs are real things and they try to do stuff to you all the time. What other thing can you think of that would be most to your advantage to have a bad guy treating as real when it's actually fake? If you can think of one, cast Phantasmal Force.

Otherwise, don't.

OK, so instead of a raging barbarian, make the illusion for the beholder a sharpshooting archer. Or, heck, another beholder: Beholders hate each other.

Oh, good call. This is probably the best phantasm against a beholder. Well played, sir.

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-04, 07:02 PM

I see nothing there about the imaginary creature remaining stationary.

Agreed, it has a size limit, not an area of effect. I would have the phantasm appear to move if possible and expected for it to behave to type.

cZak

2019-03-04, 08:06 PM

cZak

2019-03-04, 08:20 PM

Do you look at the spell and see references to grappling and movement rates?

I see a spell allowing the creation up to a 10' cube that "...deal damage...provided that the illusion is of a creature... that could logically deal damage, such as attacking."

If it's a 10' cube of broken glass & shattered rock, it can't be actual difficult terrain because the spell does not list that capability to impede movement?

It's an illusion in the mind of the target, real for all intents as purpose.
The target's only recourse of escaping the illusion is an Intelligence; Investigation check.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-05, 01:11 AM

The trouble is that literally everything I've ever "thought about it's limitations" to come up with, it's clear that phantasmal force still fails to do anything.

Create an illusion of a bridge? They're under no obligation to try to cross it. Especially if their buddies tell them it's not there. Besides, why are you resorting to that to hurt people, rather than just casting a damaging spell that doesn't rely on them specifically wanting to cross whatever obstacle you've put the bridge over?

Presumably the target has some reason to cross the bridge... the caster or something it wants is on the other side, for example. Otherwise, yeah, I don't know why are you trying to create bridge out of nowhere.

Create an illusion of a creature? They walk away. Why stand and fight it, even if they'd do so with a real creature, when this one can't leave its 10 foot square and any excuse can be made up to walk away. That gorilla can't grapple you if you move away, after all.

At the least, they'll waste action on Disengage from the enemy. But more likely, they'll fight it. There's an enemy there, why would you ignore it? Sure, perhaps you'll have better target, but that means the caster choose wrong form for an enemy. And nothing says the image can't move, only that it must fit into 10' cube. Most opponents won't grapple you either, and you still won't move away from them instead of fighting them.

A cage? Walk through the bars. Sure, you rationalize that you busted through them, maybe taking 1d6 damage, but obviously anybody would do that, right? Nobody would be fooled into banging ineffectually on the bars.

I don't know how you do things where you live, but I don't believe anyone I know would think walking into what appears like solid cage is a reasonable decision. Now, some people may try to grab the "bars" and push, and in that case, there's nothing to actually stop the enemy... which potentially means they'll lose balance and fall when their movement find no expected resistance. And they've wasted action on that too.

Fog? They won't stay in it.
Fire? Ditto.

Obviously. Both are bad choices. Now, if you make the fire into a ring around the enemy, instead of under the enemy, so it would look like staying put is safer and less painful option....

Their buddy stabbing them in the back and taunting them? No, no, the spell doesn't say you can convince them that their friends have turned on them, so the illusion of their friend attacking them obviously isn't allowed, even though their friend is a creature and a creature attacking them is perfectly reasonable.

Of course it is allowed. However, their real friend won't disappear just because you've created illusory double. The target may think it's a doppleganger, or another enemy using an illusion to disguise itself as the friend. How they'll react is up to the target, but it looks, feels, sounds and smells like real enemy.

A wall between you and them? They obviously run up and try to climb it, and find themselves falling through (not down the same side or anything), and/or bust straight through it and rationalize it as flimsy or themselves as strong. They wouldn't try to go around.

In what world is climbing or running into a wall more reasonable decision than going around?

A wall of FIRE between you and them? They test it, of course, and find taht 1d6 isn't so bad for running right through it. Maybe if it was real fire they'd behave differently, but it's not.

Again, I don't know about you, but if I see fire, and feel the heat as I move closer, I'll assume it's fire, and won't be poking my hand in it to test how hot it is. Not to mention that the target doesn't know what "1d6" is, only that it's real fire, and it burn. Again, if your enemies regularily walk into flames, of coures PF won't work in your games, but then, the problem isn't in the PF.

The answer to the other thread, "What can you do with phantasmal force?" appears to be "nothing that actually accomplishes more than 1d6 damage, once."

The answer is "lot of things, like limiting enemy movement through creating area the enemy won't move into, distracting them by creating opponents for them to fight, using various distractions and trickery out of combat or even just plainly blocking their line of sight". What you can't do is to actually create physical objects, apply any conditions or actually block the target's movement.

I see a spell allowing the creation up to a 10' cube that "...deal damage...provided that the illusion is of a creature... that could logically deal damage, such as attacking."

If it's a 10' cube of broken glass & shattered rock, it can't be actual difficult terrain because the spell does not list that capability to impede movement?

It's an illusion in the mind of the target, real for all intents as purpose.
The target's only recourse of escaping the illusion is an Intelligence; Investigation check.

Exactly. It's only an illusion. It feels pointy and dangerous, but it's not hard to actually move through. It's not difficult terrain, so the target can move at normal speed, but it'll take damage.

Segev

2019-03-05, 01:35 AM

JackPhoenix, you just argued as I would against the points I raised, but what I don’t think you picked up on was that I was detailing arguments made as to why, individually, each of those would definitely fail. Most of which then got me told hat I was doing it wrong and that I should be more creative and not try things that obviously fail due to the limitations of the spell.

I should also note that any time you said “well, it makes them waste an action,” you’re acknowledging that even your interpretation that is trying to tell me you think it works is wasting the caster’s time castin a second level spell to deny a single action from a single opponent of that opponent happens to fail a save.

It seems to me that there is so much concern that the spell not be “abused” that it’s being largely interpreted to never do anything. Not on purpose as a whole, just each thing is being individually shot down. People are afraid to let it be effective.

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 02:21 AM

It seems to me that there is so much concern that the spell not be “abused” that it’s being largely interpreted to never do anything. Not on purpose as a whole, just each thing is being individually shot down. People are afraid to let it be effective.

What's weird about this gripe is that you keep insisting on a limitation that most people don't think is there: you keep saying that any illusionary creature you create must remain stationary (within a 10' square), and then you use that limitation to gripe about the spell being useless. But most people don't seem to share that interpretation. So which "people" are you griping about?

Segev

2019-03-05, 10:32 AM

What's weird about this gripe is that you keep insisting on a limitation that most people don't think is there: you keep saying that any illusionary creature you create must remain stationary (within a 10' square), and then you use that limitation to gripe about the spell being useless. But most people don't seem to share that interpretation. So which "people" are you griping about?

My bad; I took another poster's word for it yesterday when I was AFB and couldn't look it up.

Regardless, it won't matter, because at worst, it's 1d6 psychic damage per round. Even assuming the player of the target isn't metagaming on purpose, as long as the player knows it's an illusion, this distorts the choices the player makes wrt the illusion, especially if the illusion is actually powerless to influence their behavior. It doesn't feel much like bars if you go to grab them and find that you close your hands completely into fists with nothing inside, despite having felt the cold metal briefly before your hands passed through it. You wouldn't even keep your hands still on them when you rested the weight of your arms on the friction you expected to find.

You can rationalize that they must be very slippery or that you're super-strong and crushed the "metal" bars, but that instantly makes the cage illusion worthless.

Okay, the cage, the ankle chain, the pit trap, the grappler, those are all "bad choices."

Let's look at the beholder who failed his save and has an illusion of a barbarian to deal with. An opportunity attack isn't that big of a deal, and the beholder probably wasn't on the ground in reach of a melee fighter anyway. And a ranged fighter a) can't shoot outside that 10 foot cube without some lenient DMing (even if the illusion can move around, it still has a maximum volume into which it must fit).

Okay, so instead you use an illusion of a powerful spellcaster teleporting in and beginning to cast spells. Again, the beholder need not even disengage to move more than 10 feet away, and after missing once or twice with his eye blasts and only taking 1d6 damage from the "powerful wizard's" spells that are apparently short-range, it would just move away. (I'm ignoring the anti-magic eye as it would reveal the ruse one way or another here, making this a bad choice against a beholder at all, and I recognize that "the beholder" is a placeholder for any number of monsters with flight and ranged abilities.)

Comparing the damage the "wizard" is doing - even if he stays within the range of applying illusory damage effects - to what other PCs are doing, the other PCs are a much bigger threat, and apparently much less-well defended than this insanely dodgey wizard.

So, instead, let's look at the ring of fire meant to keep the subject inside. If he has motivation to get out, he can just jump through it. Yes, he'll expect to take some fire damage (and possibly expect more than the mere 1d6 he actually will take), but the ring of fire is only 10 feet in diameter, so he can probably survive it. This is one that, even if I didn't know illusions were in play as a player, I'd probably have any non-ranged character do anyway, because being kept out of helping the party is just not fun and not good play/tactics. So it fails not because it's an illusion, but because it's one of the worst choices for an illusion: one that the target is likely willing to take the consequences for "ignoring" because it's evaluated as likely low enough cost to be survivable.

It's telling that every single example held up as "good" ends with "and at least they waste an action disengaging/walking out/testing it/beating it in some way." If hold person was "deny your target one action and deal 1d6 damage" for a second level spell slot that granted a save and required you to maintain Concentration for the round in which the action is to be denied, would you consider it worth that second level spell slot and the action to cast it? Let alone the Concentration you'd have to drop on other effects you could have up?

Would you not be puzzled that hold person had a duration of, say, 1 minute, when its effects cease to matter after one round?

Any interpretation of phantasmal force that boils down to "glorified 3e 0th-level daze with 1d6 psychic damage" is an admission that it's either a bad spell, or that there's something wrong with the interpretation.

It should be a 2nd level spell with Concentration that's worth maintaining for a minute. I also think it's instructive that the examples of what causes somebody to have to rationalize inconsistencies are of things that take the creation of the inconsistency out of voluntary control of the subject. Once he's committed his weight to that bridge, his belief can't hold him up. But as long as he's able to maintain his own balance and support, he can THINK he's committed more to it than he has. This makes it a useful illusion, with applications that can actually be worth maintaining Concentration and spending a 2nd level spell slot.

OvisCaedo

2019-03-05, 10:55 AM

Segev

2019-03-05, 11:16 AM

I know this is deep into the tangential examples that don't really matter much, but I'm actually not sure a beholder's antimagic eye would help it against phantasmal force at all. The illusion is in its brain and not actually occupying the space it appears to be in. I wonder if that, itself, is something that would be up for debate...?

generally speaking, I think phantasmal force might be one of the messiest spells to interpret and run in the game. That's sort of a general problem with illusions, I suppose; it's going to vary a lot and be unpredictable what a GM will let you get away with.

Yeah, whether it's in the beholder's head alone or is an actual illusion occupying physical space that only the beholder could see/hear/etc. is an open question; in the case of the illusion of a wizard, however, it gives away the game either way, because either the illusion is suppressed while the anti-magic eye is looking at it, or the illusion of the wizard is still casting spells even while the anti-magic eye is looking at it. Unless being in the beholder's head means it acts how the BEHOLDER expects it to, which gets into yet another can of worms.

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 11:19 AM

Let's look at the beholder who failed his save and has an illusion of a barbarian to deal with. An opportunity attack isn't that big of a deal, and the beholder probably wasn't on the ground in reach of a melee fighter anyway. And a ranged fighter a) can't shoot outside that 10 foot cube without some lenient DMing (even if the illusion can move around, it still has a maximum volume into which it must fit).

Again, if the beholder wasn't on the ground and couldn't possibly have jumped into range of the beholder, then the barbarian was a bad choice anyway--he wouldn't be a threat even if he was real. If it was on the ground, then you make a phantasm of the barbarian appear at close range, and the beholder will rationalize away the logical inconsistency ("this barbarian just appeared from invisibility and attacked me!"). Sure it can Disengage away, but the barbarian might just follow--why not just kill him instead?

The archer can't shoot arrows, but that doesn't matter because the beholder will rationalize away any logical inconsistencies: what matters isn't what the archer has done but what the beholder expects the archer to do next. If the archer were real, would the beholder zap him?

And as Chronos pointed out, the perfect "archer" decoy in this situation is actually another beholder. It is an illusion of a glass cannon (someone you definitely want to target first) who is also a hated enemy, who can fit inside a 10' x 10' square.

Okay, so instead you use an illusion of a powerful spellcaster teleporting in and beginning to cast spells. Again, the beholder need not even disengage to move more than 10 feet away, and after missing once or twice with his eye blasts and only taking 1d6 damage from the "powerful wizard's" spells that are apparently short-range, it would just move away.

This is a bad choice mostly just because you can't tell by looking at a wizard how powerful they are, so this isn't so much an illusion of a "powerful spellcaster" as "a guy in robes." If you made an illusion of something specific and recognizably powerful like a lich or a specific famous wizard that the beholder would recognize, then it would rationalize away the apparent impotence.

(I'm ignoring the anti-magic eye as it would reveal the ruse one way or another here, making this a bad choice against a beholder at all, and I recognize that "the beholder" is a placeholder for any number of monsters with flight and ranged abilities.)

Fair enough. I'm not sure if the phantasm is in the physical space or in the beholder's mind (it makes a difference when it comes to anti-magic eyes), and the beholder is definitely not going to anti-magic anything it is planning to zap, so this is definitely a side issue compared to "will the beholder take this threat seriously enough to want to kill it?"

Comparing the damage the "wizard" is doing - even if he stays within the range of applying illusory damage effects - to what other PCs are doing, the other PCs are a much bigger threat, and apparently much less-well defended than this insanely dodgey wizard.

Yep. This part right here is fair game: the beholder can rationalize away the fact that it can't kill the target, so it will still think the phantasm is real, but it can also respond rationally to the fact that it can't kill the target, and it can rationally conclude that the phantasm is definitely not a phantasm after all, and eventually switch targets or perhaps just flee. Using Phantasmal Force effectively requires you to predict the monster's behavior: if there were a real [XYZ] there, how would the monster act, and which [XYZ] phantasm would cause mistakes that are the most favorable to the party?

It's not an auto-win button. It's just an illusion spell, and sometimes the best stories come from them going awry and enemies reacting in unexpected ways.

So, instead, let's look at the ring of fire meant to keep the subject inside. If he has motivation to get out, he can just jump through it. Yes, he'll expect to take some fire damage (and possibly expect more than the mere 1d6 he actually will take), but the ring of fire is only 10 feet in diameter, so he can probably survive it. This is one that, even if I didn't know illusions were in play as a player, I'd probably have any non-ranged character do anyway, because being kept out of helping the party is just not fun and not good play/tactics. So it fails not because it's an illusion, but because it's one of the worst choices for an illusion: one that the target is likely willing to take the consequences for "ignoring" because it's evaluated as likely low enough cost to be survivable.

I agree on this one. Ring of Fire is unlikely to do anything against any target worth spending your concentration against, unless it's a social situation instead of a combat situation (i.e. non-urgent). A frost giant might not reach through a (phantasmal) wall of fire to grab an interesting book off the shelf in a library (damage still hurts even if it's not likely to be lethal) but it wouldn't let that wall of fire pin it in place during a fight.

It's telling that every single example held up as "good" ends with "and at least they waste an action disengaging/walking out/testing it/beating it in some way."

Against another beholder who turns out to be insanely dodgy, the best case is "it wastes an action (3 eye rays) zapping a non-existent target, then concludes that it is outmatched and fights to the death anyway in despair." The not-quite-so-good case ends with "it concludes it is outmatched and flees." Even the poor case of "it concludes it is outmatched and switches targets" still probably leaves it with its anti-magic eye pointed at the other beholder, which may or may not end the spell (talk to your DM) but does mean it made a second round of bad decisions. For a second-level spell to prevent hundreds of HP in damage with the possibility of further impact is not bad at all.

If hold person was "deny your target one action and deal 1d6 damage" for a second level spell slot that granted a save and required you to maintain Concentration for the round in which the action is to be denied, would you consider it worth that second level spell slot and the action to cast it? Let alone the Concentration you'd have to drop on other effects you could have up?

That's probably a poor example, because if Hold Person were "Paralyze Any Monster, with an Int save, and a duration of only one round" I would definitely take that spell. It would probably be OP.

Would you not be puzzled that hold person had a duration of, say, 1 minute, when its effects cease to matter after one round?

Any interpretation of phantasmal force that boils down to "glorified 3e 0th-level daze with 1d6 psychic damage" is an admission that it's either a bad spell, or that there's something wrong with the interpretation.

But the effects of Phantasmal Force don't end after one round. The target continues to be deluded. Your repeated claims that the spell always loses efficacy after a single action don't hold up to examination, as detailed above. Even if the beholder concludes that the other beholder is unkillable, the existence of another unkillable beholder will continue to influence its actions. It may try to kill someone else, it may flee, it may surrender and grovel. The spell remains effective and the delusion still continues.

JackPhoenix

2019-03-05, 12:18 PM

So, instead, let's look at the ring of fire meant to keep the subject inside. If he has motivation to get out, he can just jump through it. Yes, he'll expect to take some fire damage (and possibly expect more than the mere 1d6 he actually will take), but the ring of fire is only 10 feet in diameter, so he can probably survive it. This is one that, even if I didn't know illusions were in play as a player, I'd probably have any non-ranged character do anyway, because being kept out of helping the party is just not fun and not good play/tactics. So it fails not because it's an illusion, but because it's one of the worst choices for an illusion: one that the target is likely willing to take the consequences for "ignoring" because it's evaluated as likely low enough cost to be survivable.

That's kinda the core of the issue. You'll have to use the spell in a way that doesn't give the target the motivation to get out. He can't walk away without getting burned, but he's not in any immediate danger, and he can presume the fire works both ways. Most (non-metagaming) melee combatants would switch to ranged weapon, perhaps compromising their effectivity, most unintelligent beasts won't try to randomly jump through fire, and even ranged combatants and spellcasters who aren't hampered by the fire directly would be disincentivised from moving, perhaps stopping them from escaping or repositioning. It's a great spell if you want to get your enemy to surrender.

Or make it a red-hot cage instead of flames. It will look solid, so the enemy won't just try to walk away, and if it's red hot, he won't want to touch it to try if he can bend the bars.

It's telling that every single example held up as "good" ends with "and at least they waste an action disengaging/walking out/testing it/beating it in some way." If hold person was "deny your target one action and deal 1d6 damage" for a second level spell slot that granted a save and required you to maintain Concentration for the round in which the action is to be denied, would you consider it worth that second level spell slot and the action to cast it? Let alone the Concentration you'd have to drop on other effects you could have up?

Would you not be puzzled that hold person had a duration of, say, 1 minute, when its effects cease to matter after one round?

That's... pretty bad example, because target of Hold Person gets to retry the save every turn. So exactly that kind of scenario happens pretty often. And that's not counting the tons of monsters that *seem* humanoid, but aren't, making casting the spell a waste. PF has that with undead too, but HP is more limited.

Any interpretation of phantasmal force that boils down to "glorified 3e 0th-level daze with 1d6 psychic damage" is an admission that it's either a bad spell, or that there's something wrong with the interpretation.

There is. Phantasmal Force is very versatile, and usable beyond just combat. Create an illusion of food to distract an unintelligent monster, or even get it to fight other monsters nearby over it (ever seen what happens when you're feeding cats, and one overeager cat gets in the way and has the food land on it?). Create an illusion of bribe or proper documents to get past a guard. Make the target seem insane by "hallucinating" in public. Kill someone without any physical evidence what happened, AND decieve anyone who tries to use Speak with Dead to find the truth. Decieve and distract enemies in combat by creating "obstacles" and "creatures" it will react to.

Hold Person, on the other hand, is pretty much useless out of combat.

It should be a 2nd level spell with Concentration that's worth maintaining for a minute. I also think it's instructive that the examples of what causes somebody to have to rationalize inconsistencies are of things that take the creation of the inconsistency out of voluntary control of the subject. Once he's committed his weight to that bridge, his belief can't hold him up. But as long as he's able to maintain his own balance and support, he can THINK he's committed more to it than he has. This makes it a useful illusion, with applications that can actually be worth maintaining Concentration and spending a 2nd level spell slot.

Sure, and I would say the spell covers *small* inconsistencies. Touch an phantasmal wall, and the spell will prevent you from realizing your hand is a bit further away than you think and it's clipping with the "wall". But push against the "wall" with all your strength, and there's no actual resistance, so you'll fall right through, propably losing balance in the process. Wasting one enemy action may not seem as much, but it's more reliable than Hold Person thanks to better save (Int vs Wis), doesn't have any limits on creature type, and if you choose a target that can cause heavy damage with its attacks or spells, it could be worth it. And that single action is about 20-33% of the actions the enemy would get in a typical encounter anyway.

Yeah, whether it's in the beholder's head alone or is an actual illusion occupying physical space that only the beholder could see/hear/etc. is an open question; in the case of the illusion of a wizard, however, it gives away the game either way, because either the illusion is suppressed while the anti-magic eye is looking at it, or the illusion of the wizard is still casting spells even while the anti-magic eye is looking at it. Unless being in the beholder's head means it acts how the BEHOLDER expects it to, which gets into yet another can of worms.

It's not an open question. The spell clearly states the illusion is in the target's mind. It's literally the first sentence of the spell's description.

Thrudd

2019-03-05, 01:43 PM

They have one large oversight in the spell text, in that it doesn't specify how the phantasm moves, whether it only moves on the spell caster's turn, or if it automatically follows the target if specified, or what - but neither does it specify that it is stationary - only that it can't be larger than a 10ft cube. It has a range of 60ft, so it seems reasonable that the illiusion can't move beyond the range of the spell.

This is something the DM will need to rule on. Since the illusion "takes root in the target's mind", I'd say that there are clear categories of objects and they would move differently. One type is a stationary object that won't appear to move - the bridge, a wall, etc. One type is a creature or something that can attack and move independently of the target - this would need to be moved on the spell caster's turn according to their direction. The third is an object that is attached to the target, like ropes or a snake wrapped around them - this would move wherever the target moves, within range of the spell. Of course, it is also possible for a DM to rule that this spell is not meant to move at all, outside its 10ft cube where it first appears, since the text doesn't say it can move. So if the force is made to appear as a creature attacking the target, they can run away from it and stop taking damage - they will still see it standing there, but it won't be able to chase them. If the target is being choked by a snake and tries to move, they will successfully move, apparently leaving the snake behind -they'll still see it there. You might also say that the illusion of a creature attacking the target means that they will continue to perceive being attacked, the attack being part of what's "rooted in the target's mind", and therefore the illusion follows them wherever they go automatically.

It also doesn't say that the spell can only do 1d6 once - it can do 1d6 psychic damage "each round on your turn...if the target is within the phantasm's area or within 5 ft provided it is an illusion of a creature or hazard that could logically deal damage."

It also says that a target that has failed their saving throw will rationalize any strange interactions with the illusion (such as falling through the bridge)- they don't automatically realize it isn't real, they just think something else made them fall off the bridge. If it's something like fire or an enemy, they will believe it is still burning and stabbing and go on taking damage until they choose to investigate (and do so successfully) - which might require an outside party telling them that nothing is really attacking them.

So an illusion of a giant snake grappling someone would not inhibit their movement, but they also would still think a snake is wrapped around them and they would take 1d6 damage every round from it, as they believe it is constricting them or biting them, and their attacks against it would be having no effect on it. Maybe it makes sense they wouldn't move, because they think the snake is holding them in place, but that's really up to the individual. The illusion makes them feel like a snake is wrapped around them, but they also strangely seem to have free range of motion. It still hurts, of course, which might be enough to stop someone from immediately doubting the reality of the illusion. As a DM, in the case of a PC's illusion that is in continual physical contact with the target , I would roll a secret INT check to see if the creature gets suspicious of the strange physics at play (if there are strange physics at play) enough to use its action investigating - rather than simply deciding by fiat that the creature is either too dumb to ever be suspicious or smart enough to immediately be suspicious.

In the case of the pit illusion, I would rule this as an illusion that moves around with the target, since they believe they are inside it. If they jump up to try to climb out, they will rationalize why they fell forward yet didn't hit the wall and are still in the pit. Everyone else might see them jumping around, five feet at a time, and looking up and grabbing at the air, crying for help. If they bumped into someone or something while doing this, they would probably rationalize it as having bumped into the wall of the pit. If someone grabs a hold of them and talks to them, I would think this would be enough to make them stop and investigate the illusion, as a disembodied arm (or maybe it looks like a root that came out of nowhere) is now thrust through the illusory pit wall they are seeing and their friend's voice is telling them nothing is here...

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-05, 01:49 PM

I see a spell allowing the creation up to a 10' cube that "...deal damage...provided that the illusion is of a creature... that could logically deal damage, such as attacking."

I'll take that as a no?

If it's a 10' cube of broken glass & shattered rock, it can't be actual difficult terrain because the spell does not list that capability to impede movement?

Correct in the sense that it's not actual difficult terrain because the spell has no such actual effects, however it could be perfectly reasonable to model the target's approach to navigating the space using the effects of difficult terrain. Exactly like how the fact that we infer the target may fruitlessly try to attack a creature phantasm, and presumably model that with a normal attack roll, still does not mean the spell creates an actual creature.

It's an illusion in the mind of the target, real for all intents as purpose.

Given that the spell description plainly describes how to handle the phantasm's deficiencies in the reality department, I'm at a loss as to how you end up typing in this sentence.

Segev

2019-03-05, 02:11 PM

Phantasmal force is usable beyond combat, yes, but so are other illusions that don't have nearly the cruft attached to them. I'll grant that any time you're handing the illusion to the target, phantasmal force is actually quite good. However, that is, so far, the only use that seems to stand up to every objection I've seen raised.

Many of the things people seem to think I'm over-exagerating the weaknesses of phantasmal force wrt are things that I've had told to me when I've made such suggestions. The red-hot-cage would be passed straight through when he tried anything, because he'd want to make the contact brief as possible and thus throw himself at it and viola, he's out because he has nothing stopping him, not even his own mind.

I agree; if the DM runs it with the thought of how the monster would react if a real whatever was actually there, it might be more effective. Unfortunately, I've never seen a DM who successfully does this. Even really good DMs just can't seem to escape that metaknowledge, so the "what would they do if...?" winds up being answered incorrectly. Or, at least, in such a way that it makes the spell useless. And which seems never to work out favorably by having the behavior replicated when the threats are real.

So the fact that all these rulings and arguments amount to "well, maybe, if you're lucky and chose a good illusion, it will influence the behavior of the critter, but it won't actually diminish the critter's effectiveness for more than a round, so it's real use is outside of combat" makes me question why it bothers with the 1d6 psychic damage.

My only suggestion is that the fact that the target believes it to be real and feels it as well as senses it with his other senses should mean the target subconsciously stops himself from engaging in voluntary actions that would force rationalization. If he grips the bars of an illusory cage, he not only feels them, but feels like he's tugging on them/resting his arms' weight on them, despite the fact that he's actually pantomiming. His efforts to walk out are halted because he feels metal bars pushing back against him, and doesn't realize he's not actually pushing against them at all.

With the grappling gorilla, he may try to move, but won't realize that it's only his belief that he can't get loose from the gorilla's grip that keeps him from simply going where he wants to. He can't move because he doesn't believe he can. Much like a mime can't escape invisible ropes with which he'd been bound.

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 02:25 PM

I agree; if the DM runs it with the thought of how the monster would react if a real whatever was actually there, it might be more effective. Unfortunately, I've never seen a DM who successfully does this. Even really good DMs just can't seem to escape that metaknowledge, so the "what would they do if...?" winds up being answered incorrectly.

Don't use illusions at a table where the DM is bad at adjudicating illusions.

Edit: Also, don't run illusions at a table where you're bad at predicting how the DM is going to run monsters' reactions to illusions--from what I've seen on this thread you don't have quite the right mind-set to be good at illusions even under a good DM. You keep looking for crunchy effects instead of psychological effects.

So the fact that all these rulings and arguments amount to "well, maybe, if you're lucky and chose a good illusion, it will influence the behavior of the critter, but it won't actually diminish the critter's effectiveness for more than a round, so it's real use is outside of combat" makes me question why it bothers with the 1d6 psychic damage.

Again, I think you're wrong about it not hindering for more than a round, but RE: psychic damage, I agree on that point. The 1d6 psychic damage is basically a ribbon; the spell would still be approximately as useful without it unless you're trying to use it for e.g. public assassinations (presumably from hiding).

With the grappling gorilla, he may try to move, but won't realize that it's only his belief that he can't get loose from the gorilla's grip that keeps him from simply going where he wants to. He can't move because he doesn't believe he can. Much like a mime can't escape invisible ropes with which he'd been bound.

I'd rule that the gorilla never grapples him in the first place. He perceives the gorilla attempting to grapple him and failing; he may believe it will try again; but at no time is he ever under the grappled condition and unable to move. This is an example of what I mean by you looking for crunchy effects instead of psychological ones.

Segev

2019-03-05, 03:33 PM

Don't use illusions at a table where the DM is bad at adjudicating illusions.

Edit: Also, don't run illusions at a table where you're bad at predicting how the DM is going to run monsters' reactions to illusions--from what I've seen on this thread you don't have quite the right mind-set to be good at illusions even under a good DM. You keep looking for crunchy effects instead of psychological effects.

(...)

I'd rule that the gorilla never grapples him in the first place. He perceives the gorilla attempting to grapple him and failing; he may believe it will try again; but at no time is he ever under the grappled condition and unable to move. This is an example of what I mean by you looking for crunchy effects instead of psychological ones.

In my experience, NO DM - including nearly every person who's expressed an opinion in these threads - would actually have psychological effects that, upon examination, result in the illusion having been worth casting over a flat damage spell of the same level. You SAY the psychological effects would be impressive, but in the end, they ultimately amount to naught.

The only "crunchy" effect I'm looking for is that the target actually acts like the illusion is doing something. That the target - believing it to be real to every sense - can't "just happen" to take actions which contradict it, and rationalize away the contradictions so he still believes in it...but doesn't care because the illusion can't really do anything.

It'd be really cool if monsters would hurl themselves at the walls of pits and such the way people have described they would with illusory ones. Put some spikes or other harmful effects just under the soft loamy wall and watch them impale themselves! Please, walk right through my wall of fire; the damage on that is actually pretty decent, and well worth having you ignore the "fake" threat.

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 03:38 PM

In my experience, NO DM - including nearly every person who's expressed an opinion in these threads - would actually have psychological effects that, upon examination, result in the illusion having been worth casting over a flat damage spell of the same level. You SAY the psychological effects would be impressive, but in the end, they ultimately amount to naught.

The only "crunchy" effect I'm looking for is that the target actually acts like the illusion is doing something.

Well then we are at an impasse. I say this is how it would work if I'm the DM; you say I'm... lying? And you know this how? Or maybe you're just saying that I'm not your DM, and your DMs do it differently? I dunno. But if illusions don't work under a given DM due to DM metagaming, don't use them. It's always been that way. It takes a certain mindset for a DM to keep what the monster knows separate from what the DM knows and not everybody has it.

@Everyone, not just Segev... one nice little technique that I've stolen from solo D&D games but is applicable to group play is to use die rolls as oracles.

DM: "Will the beholder keep attacking the phantasmal beholder even after not doing anything last round? It seems likely, given how much it hates other beholders, so I'll roll at advantage: [roll: max(2,4) = 4, which is "Yes, but..."] Yes, but it's not going to focus entirely on the other beholder. One of its eye beams will zap the fighter, and some of its legendary actions will go for whoever looks vulnerable."

You can let the players know the significance of the die rolls if you want to emphasize the impact the spell is having on the beholder/maximize the amount of information the players have, or if you want to be more mysterious you can just do the classic "DM says nothing but rolls some dice while eyeing [player] then grunts and makes a note" thing.

Segev

2019-03-05, 03:58 PM

Well then we are at an impasse. I say this is how it would work if I'm the DM; you say I'm... lying? And you know this how? Or maybe you're just saying that I'm not your DM, and your DMs do it differently? I dunno. But if illusions don't work under a given DM due to DM metagaming, don't use them. It's always been that way. It takes a certain mindset for a DM to keep what the monster knows separate from what the DM knows and not everybody has it.

Less that you're lying, and more that, examining the things you'd say would happen, I still am mostly seeing, "It winds up doing very little for its cost," in what you describe even in things you'd allow.

Your "dice as oracles" may change that a bit; I'd have to see it in action (which isn't likely to happen, as I doubt we'll ever game together).

It is my experience, however, that many people will say, "If I were DMing it, it'd really be useful for anybody who was creative with it," and then - as with these threads - when examples of efforts to be creative are actually brought up, the person in question winds up playing it in a way that makes it not all that useful. And then we get the, "Well, you don't have the mindset to play illusions right, I guess," comments.

It pretty much comes down to the fact that I have yet to find a DM who really can separate that metaknowledge of it being an illusion. Even in theory, on boards and such. it's apparently a REALLy hard thing to do.

cZak

2019-03-05, 04:14 PM

I'll take that as a no?

So your games do not use the Attack action as a Grapple or Shove..? Is it unreasonable for a creature to use these tactics?
I'll grant that the description is incredibly vague. In creating a creature that attacks the target, the caster needs to establish what is the basis of the effect; hit it with a stick. And this may not be alterable because the description does not say it can be.
But if the caster has the effect of an ogre grappling and trying to hold the target immobile, this seems a reasonable scenario.
Otherwise, how is it different from Silent image?

Correct in the sense that it's not actual difficult terrain because the spell has no such actual effects, however it could be perfectly reasonable to model the target's approach to navigating the space using the effects of difficult terrain. Exactly like how the fact that we infer the target may fruitlessly try to attack a creature phantasm, and presumably model that with a normal attack roll, still does not mean the spell creates an actual creature.

In the mind of the target, the creature is real. The mind is so convinced that it inflicts damage when there is no actual physical effect
So it is unreasonable that the mind would not limit the body's mobility?
Would not flinch/pull away/ tread awkwardly over perceived rough terrain?
Told a surface is hot, upon touching it, being burned even tho the surface is cool?

Given that the spell description plainly describes how to handle the phantasm's deficiencies in the reality department, I'm at a loss as to how you end up typing in this sentence.

Swing & A Miss the point
The Illusion is real in the subjects mind; An ogre grappling, a flying bedsheet wrapped around it's head, a goblin poking him with a stick, etc...
To escape the effect, like many other spells, is to succeed on a designated Saving throw. In this case, it is an Int/Investigation.
The regular actions to do these things (Strenght vs Grapple) result in an Intelligence; Investigation.
If the Int/Inv fails, they 'rationalize' they failed the check

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 04:19 PM

Less that you're lying, and more that, examining the things you'd say would happen, I still am mostly seeing, "It winds up doing very little for its cost," in what you describe even in things you'd allow.

Then I think you're wrong. If you can mitigate a full round of beholder eye beams and maybe make the beholder flee afterwards, you're saving dozens or hundreds of points of HP damage (and maybe a perma-death from Disintegration). That is worth far more than a direct damage spell like Magic Missile II or Scorching Ray for about 14 points of damage.

It is my experience, however, that many people will say, "If I were DMing it, it'd really be useful for anybody who was creative with it," and then - as with these threads - when examples of efforts to be creative are actually brought up, the person in question winds up playing it in a way that makes it not all that useful. And then we get the, "Well, you don't have the mindset to play illusions right, I guess," comments.

It pretty much comes down to the fact that I have yet to find a DM who really can separate that metaknowledge of it being an illusion. Even in theory, on boards and such. it's apparently a REALLy hard thing to do.

I think you need to be really careful about conflating "my experience" with statements about other posters. You can't say, "In my experience, you would run it like every other DM I've had" because you have no experience. In this context, "in my experience" is just empty words. In my experience, it's just a verbal tic that you are using out of habit and not because it means something.

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-05, 04:26 PM

I had the spell used once that I can recall when I was DM. The party was facing a single, much more powerful enemy. The phantasm was a wolf, the enemy decided to swat it away and spent two rounds doing this, when it yielded no results despite the fact that the wolf should normally have been easily squashed the enemy turned onto other targets. Probably the caster was injured and lost concentration shortly after this. Still, two rounds of a powerful enemy sucking and maybe 4d6 damage on top isn't a waste for a 2nd-level spell.

(Incidentally, I figure two rounds at most is how long a player with any degree of system mastery would spend sucking against a phantasm.)

Coffee_Dragon

2019-03-05, 06:01 PM

So your games do not use the Attack action as a Grapple or Shove..?

Holy moving goalposts, Batman, do games include grapple and shove? The answer is yes, they may. And the answer to whether Phantasmal Force references grappling still appears to be no, and the question "When does 'all purposes' really mean 'some purposes'" is the clue that will lead us to the place of the Riddler's next crime.

Chronos

2019-03-05, 06:32 PM

So what I'm getting from this isn't that Phantasmal Force is unreliable; it's that Segev knows all the wrong DMs. Because all of the DMs I've played under have the NPCs actually reacting the same way they would to a real thing.

As for movement, I think the simplest interpretation is that it moves in the way that the victim would expect it to move. They wouldn't expect a bridge or a wall to move at all, they'd expect a net or manacles to move with them, and they'd expect a creature to follow them, but not instantly. On the one hand, this means that the caster doesn't need to do anything to move it, but on the other, it also means that the caster can't make it move in a way that the victim doesn't expect.

cZak

2019-03-05, 07:33 PM

Holy moving goalposts, Batman...

No movement of goalposts. Just establishment of field dimensions

A illusion of an attacking ogre
An attack action includes the effects of shoving & grappling

Does the spell have to distinctly include the actions generally included in established rules of the Attack action defined in the PHB?

guachi

2019-03-05, 08:11 PM

I see it as: Breaking free of a grapple from a phantasm is not an Strength;Athletics/Dexterity;Acrobatics check

It is an Intelligence; Investigation check

You have instilled into the mind of the creature that it is grappled
If it cannot succeed on mentally disbelieving the illusion, it rationalizes that it is too weak/incapable of physically breaking the grapple'

This is how I'd do it. Phantasmal Force the 8 Int Bear Barbarian and watch him fail his save and take full damage even when raging as his mind keeps him trapped.

MaxWilson

2019-03-05, 08:44 PM

So what I'm getting from this isn't that Phantasmal Force is unreliable; it's that Segev knows all the wrong DMs. Because all of the DMs I've played under have the NPCs actually reacting the same way they would to a real thing.

I hypothesize that this is a Combat As War vs. Combat As Sport thing. If you're already prepared to let the PCs fight monsters that are not "level appropriate" and let the chips fall where they may based on how clever the PCs are, letting Phantasmal Force work naturally is straightforward: the monster just reacts as if the phantasm is real. But if you run "balanced" encounters designed to give PCs an appropriate number of rounds of combat against a punching bag designed to lose in an exciting way, maybe there is more temptation to avoid letting Phantasmal Force do too much.

Basically I'm hypothesizing here that Segev seeks out a specific kind of DM, which is different from the kind of DM that I strive to be or that Chronos plays with. It's interesting if Segev finds that Phantasmal Force never works for them, but it says more about the DMs Segev plays with than it does about anyone else here.

Segev

2019-03-06, 10:30 AM

Then I think you're wrong. If you can mitigate a full round of beholder eye beams and maybe make the beholder flee afterwards, you're saving dozens or hundreds of points of HP damage (and maybe a perma-death from Disintegration). That is worth far more than a direct damage spell like Magic Missile II or Scorching Ray for about 14 points of damage.At most, one to three eye beams, not "an entire round" of eyebeams. And that presumes that a) the beholder already had all his eyebeams engaged, and isn't just turning ones that he couldn't on extant PCs on the illusion, and b) that the beholder determines the barbarian is a sufficient threat compared to already-engaged foes (i.e. real PCs) to divert those eye-beams.

I think you need to be really careful about conflating "my experience" with statements about other posters. You can't say, "In my experience, you would run it like every other DM I've had" because you have no experience. In this context, "in my experience" is just empty words. In my experience, it's just a verbal tic that you are using out of habit and not because it means something.

So what I'm getting from this isn't that Phantasmal Force is unreliable; it's that Segev knows all the wrong DMs. Because all of the DMs I've played under have the NPCs actually reacting the same way they would to a real thing.

I hypothesize that this is a Combat As War vs. Combat As Sport thing. If you're already prepared to let the PCs fight monsters that are not "level appropriate" and let the chips fall where they may based on how clever the PCs are, letting Phantasmal Force work naturally is straightforward: the monster just reacts as if the phantasm is real. But if you run "balanced" encounters designed to give PCs an appropriate number of rounds of combat against a punching bag designed to lose in an exciting way, maybe there is more temptation to avoid letting Phantasmal Force do too much.

Basically I'm hypothesizing here that Segev seeks out a specific kind of DM, which is different from the kind of DM that I strive to be or that Chronos plays with. It's interesting if Segev finds that Phantasmal Force never works for them, but it says more about the DMs Segev plays with than it does about anyone else here.
Note that, when I said, "In my experience...," I included specifically the descriptions of what posters here have said they'd treat various choices of illusions as.

Now, I'll take MaxWilson's word for it that in the specific case of "extra foe (e.g. barbarian) vs. Beholder," he'd find excuse to have the Beholder be distracted by it. It's only fair to take him at his word.

But when all it takes to find out that a given example will fail is to take one person's "this would totally work at my table" and present it to a different poster who takes one look at it and explains exactly why it's useless, I hope you can see my problem. I shouldn't have to basically ask the DM to tell me what phantasmal force illusions to use. That rightfully gets DMs saying, "It's your spell; be creative!" But it seems like - using just this forum as a study - if the person judging the effect didn't come up with it, himself, as something that should work, holes get poked until it's useless.

Possibly it is my pool of DMs - almost all of whom are good friends of mine, but a few of which have been convention-gaming table judges (they're actually - again, in my experience - usually the WORST ones to use anything other than a straight-up damage spell or a spell with EXPLICIT mechancis that leave NO leeway for 'well, that can be interpreted broadly as being dangerous to them, so it fails,' as with suggestion) - but I run into the same problem with illusions - especially phantasmal force - just asking around here.

I'm too lazy to go back and comb my own posts, but several of the examples that have been shot down in this thread I just lifted from the other concurrent one as things those posters thought were good counter-arguments to my gripes that it seems everything that can be done really can't.

In general, my conclusion is that if you don't get the DM to basically tell you what illusion to use, you've got a high probability of learning you were "not creative" enough, or "have the wrong mindset," because you didn't start with 100% buy-in that your choice of illusion would definitely work. And you never will if it wasn't their idea in the first place. Something about illusions just seems to make the meta-knowledge impossible to ignore.

As for movement, I think the simplest interpretation is that it moves in the way that the victim would expect it to move. They wouldn't expect a bridge or a wall to move at all, they'd expect a net or manacles to move with them, and they'd expect a creature to follow them, but not instantly. On the one hand, this means that the caster doesn't need to do anything to move it, but on the other, it also means that the caster can't make it move in a way that the victim doesn't expect.
Well, the caster CAN'T really do anything to move a phantasmal force; he can't perceive it.

Though here's a question: if a Sorcerer uses Twin Spell on phantasmal force, do both targets see the same illusion, or do each get their own? If each gets their own, can they be of different things? Or are they two copies of the same thing that are behaving slightly differently because each is in a different person's head?

e.g., Twin phantasmal force to make two orcs think their boss showed up and Gibbs-smacked them on the back of the head. Do they both see the boss doing the same thing, reacting the same way, and saying the same things, or do each see the boss doing different things based on their interactions with him? Or, if they're separate, can one see their boss walk up, and the other see a sexy orc-girl walk up, and both think the other is acting really weird for how they're interacting with utterly different illusions they each assume the other can also see since they can't see the other's?

MaxWilson

2019-03-06, 10:38 AM

At most, one to three eye beams, not "an entire round" of eyebeams. And that presumes that a) the beholder already had all his eyebeams engaged, and isn't just turning ones that he couldn't on extant PCs on the illusion, and b) that the beholder determines the barbarian is a sufficient threat compared to already-engaged foes (i.e. real PCs) to divert those eye-beams.

...Now, I'll take MaxWilson's word for it that in the specific case of "extra foe (e.g. barbarian) vs. Beholder," he'd find excuse to have the Beholder be distracted by it. It's only fair to take him at his word.

Do note that I have said repeatedly that the best illusion against a beholder is clearly another beholder, not a Barbarian. It's weird that you're ignoring the case I identified as clearly the best choice while still claiming to represent my views.

In practical terms, this means you'd probably get advantage on your oracle d6 if you were using another beholder, a straight roll if the beholder was at ground level in melee range of the barbarian, and disadvantage on your oracle d6 if the beholder is flying in a cavern and the barbarian is climbing walls and jumping around underneath it swinging a polearm that can barely reach the beholder. If the barbarian is clearly incapable of reaching the beholder at all you get nothing, it will indeed ignore the barbarian.

Oracle: will the beholder attack the hostile beholder [or barbarian] that just appeared from hiding and started attacking it?
1: No, and...
2: No.
3: No, but...
4: Yes, but...
5: Yes.
6: Yes, and...

Possibly it is my pool of DMs - almost all of whom are good friends of mine, but a few of which have been convention-gaming table judges (they're actually - again, in my experience - usually the WORST ones to use anything other than a straight-up damage spell or a spell with EXPLICIT mechancis that leave NO leeway for 'well, that can be interpreted broadly as being dangerous to them, so it fails,' as with suggestion) - but I run into the same problem with illusions - especially phantasmal force - just asking around here.

I'm too lazy to go back and comb my own posts, but several of the examples that have been shot down in this thread I just lifted from the other concurrent one as things those posters thought were good counter-arguments to my gripes that it seems everything that can be done really can't.

I bet it is your pool of DMs. And "shot down in this thread" by whom specifically? It matters. If DM A says he grants an automatic Investigation check to any monster that attacks a decoy phantasm, you can't generalize that to DM B's table. It wasn't "shot down" by the Collective Hive Mind of All DMs, it was shot down by DM A.