What can you accomplish with Phantasmal Force?

[Aquillion]

So I'm thinking about Phantasmal Force and what it can do. Unlike most other illusion spells, Phantasmal Force forces the target to treat it as real if they fail their save, so they can't simply expose it as an illusion by interacting with it (and thereafter ignore it as well as they can):


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.

By my reading, if you create thick illusionary fog with it (utterly surrounding the target, the target suffers the full penalties of being in thick fog - disadvantage on all attacks, all attackers get advantage. Of course, you can make it acid fog so they still take the spell's damage.

Or you could go with a heavy storm of acid centered on them, raining down so heavily they can't see, with wind and thunder so loud that they can't hear. To be even more effective, you could eg. make it look like the edge of the storm is always just to the east (or whatever direction you want to herd them in), so they try to escape that way and never manage it.

But why stop there? By my reading, nothing stops you from going for an illusion of "you are now encased in solid stone, slowly crushing the life out of you." The target, forced to treat it as real, won't take any actions, will they? They could, but since they believe they're being crushed to death in a stone prison, their actions are going to be to struggle against the crushing stone or to try and disbelieve it.

Granted, as powerful as that sounds, one weakness to an illusion that completely strips them of all agency is that they'll probably just spend their actions trying to disbelieve; used like that, the spell isn't actually that much more powerful than Hold Person (it does slight damage, but also folds to stuff that reveals illusions, and the Investigation check is going to generally be easier to make than a save.)

So the ideal illusions are probably ones that encourage them to spend their actions on things other than investigating it - eg. a crushing boulder that tries to herd them around the battlefield, or the aforementioned acid storm that they're always almost out of if they just run a bit further.

Do people have any other ideas or better suggestions, though? Or do they think some of the ones I mentioned wouldn't work?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You can also make an enemy more dangerous then your party so he will be focused.

You can make doors that the target will not be able to get through.

You can make a bridge and watch as your enemy think he fell down and try again.

Just do the right thing it the right time.

[Contrast]

By my reading, if you create thick illusionary fog with it (utterly surrounding the target, the target suffers the full penalties of being in thick fog - disadvantage on all attacks, all attackers get advantage. Of course, you can make it acid fog so they still take the spell's damage.

Or you could go with a heavy storm of acid centered on them, raining down so heavily they can't see, with wind and thunder so loud that they can't hear. To be even more effective, you could eg. make it look like the edge of the storm is always just to the east (or whatever direction you want to herd them in), so they try to escape that way and never manage it.


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

Note that nothing in the spell description says the illusion travels with them so thats something to check with your DM. I imagine most DMs allow it to but you might start pushing the limits when you're summoning inactive weather formations or an immobile pillar of stone rather than something capable of following the target or attached to them. If you summon a 10ft block of stone/lava or whatever and then the person struggles/stumbles out of it, nothing in the spell says you get to move it with them.

On that note, be aware nothing about the spell actually restricts their movement. You may encase them in stone but if they struggle (which it feels almost impossible that they won't attempt to) they will find themselves completely able to move and presumably assume they're just in some sort of pressuring darkness (seeing as they can't...you know...see), to which the obvious solution would be to attempt to leave.

As always with illusions the trick is selling it to your DM without making it so OP that they hit you with the nerf hammer.

My go to is a sealed shut iron face mask/helmet strapped to their head. I've also described my bard removing an illusory handkerchief from his sleeve with floats to the target and wraps itself around their head as a blindfold, tightening more and more. I would definitely as a DM interpret any action spent solely interacting with the illusion (fighting a monster, attempting to remove a blindfold, etc) as an Investigation check.


Edit -


the Investigation check is going to generally be easier to make than a save

I think you have this backward. By my count there are only 2 entries in the MM with prof in Investigation plus things with legendary resistances/magic resistance are screwed if you manage to land the spell. Admittedly true sight screws you but there you go.

[sophontteks]

If they believe the illusion is real why would they spend an action trying to disbelieve it?
They have to have a reason to believe its not real to make such an action. You'd definately want to avoid any PF so outlandish that the NPC is allowed to disbelieve it just because its that senseless. You don't need to create outlandish illusions to create debilitating effects or to take someone out of the fight.

And don't discount the really mundane uses. PF could be used to fake documents to officials for example.

To get the most of PF think small, or your DM is going to have an issue with you. My favorite is having poisonous insects stinging the victims eyes, or creating false acts of god to influence superstitious people. The spell gets really good if you did your homework and know the target's goals, fears, and desires.

[Mr. Crowbar]

My lore bard fought a tabaxi monk and used PF to trap him in an upside-down box. Just as the monk got close to passing the investigation check - I hit him with Cutting Words. Phantasmal Force is f'ing great on a lore bard, you can keep it going as long as you got Cutting Words.

I've also used it to get a foe to believe their ally is one of us. Once the infighting started we just sat back watching them go at it and picked off the survivor.

As a benevolent use, I recall someone else's story of using PF to allow a woman to have a last dance with her deceased husband. That's stuck with me.

[Keravath]

I used PF once to attack a giant with a phantasmal creature. When the giant misty stepped away, the DM decided that the illusion followed which seemed very strange to the giant so he used his next action to inspect it and discovered it was an illusion.

However, PF and most of the illusion type spells including suggestion are very much DM dependent. Some DMs simply say it doesn't work or whatever you come up with is too powerful for a second level spell. Others are more open minded. I tend to disagree with restrictive rulings but DMs vary a lot.

"PHANTASMAL FORCE
2nd-level illusion
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fleece)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute You craft an illusion that takes root in the mind of a
creature that you can see within range. The target must make an Intelligence saving throw. 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. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs. The phantasm includes sound, temperature, and other stimuli, also evident only to the creature. The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your
spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends.
While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. For example, a target attempting to walk across a phantasmal bridge that spans a chasm falls
once it steps onto the bridge. If the target survives the fall, it still believes that the bridge exists and comes up with some other explanation for its fall—it was pushed, it slipped, or a strong wind might have knocked it off.
An affected target is so convinced of the phantasm's reality that it can even take damage from the illusion. A phantasm created to appear as a creature can attack the target. Similarly. a phantasm created to appear as fire, a pool of acid, or lava can burn the target. Each round on your turn. 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. The target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion."

Since the illusion is in the mind of the target and not in a specific location, one would expect the illusion to be capable of moving with the target depending on the nature of the illusion. This means that if you created an acid pool then as long as the target was within 5' of it, it would take damage. However, if the phantasm can't logically move or does something completely outside the context of the illusion then that could trigger an investigation check.

Some DMs will allow the investigation check automatically while the spell description strongly implies that the creature believes the phantasm is real as a part of the spell so they don't really have a reason to make an investigation check. On the other hand, a minion or team mate yelling that the phantasm isn't real would likely be enough to trigger the option to make an investigation check.

[Keravath]

My lore bard fought a tabaxi monk and used PF to trap him in an upside-down box. Just as the monk got close to passing the investigation check - I hit him with Cutting Words. Phantasmal Force is f'ing great on a lore bard, you can keep it going as long as you got Cutting Words.

I've also used it to get a foe to believe their ally is one of us. Once the infighting started we just sat back watching them go at it and picked off the survivor.

As a benevolent use, I recall someone else's story of using PF to allow a woman to have a last dance with her deceased husband. That's stuck with me.

I've cited the spell above. I don't think you can use PF to convince a foe that their ally is an enemy. PF creates a sensory illusion affecting the creature if they fail a save. It doesn't make them believe something different.

Suggestion might be the appropriate spell for this type of behaviour modification.

[cZak]

I put this question up awhile ago and had some interesting inputs to the thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?579801-Can-Phanstasmal-force-grapple


If you're taking Phantasmal force for the damage, you're choosing poorly. There are other 2nd level spells that do better
The benefit of PF is in it's versatility and it's targeted save; Int is usually poor for most challenges

[sophontteks]

I put this question up awhile ago and had some interesting inputs to the thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?579801-Can-Phanstasmal-force-grapple


If you're taking Phantasmal force for the damage, you're choosing poorly. There are other 2nd level spells that do better
The benefit of PF is in it's versatility and it's targeted save; Int is usually poor for most challenges
There is an exception. A subtle sorcerer could use the spell out of combat to deal 10d6 damage in one minute. It's some fun chaos.

[Segev]

I've cited the spell above. I don't think you can use PF to convince a foe that their ally is an enemy. PF creates a sensory illusion affecting the creature if they fail a save. It doesn't make them believe something different.

Suggestion might be the appropriate spell for this type of behaviour modification.

You could use it to create the illusion of a painful stab in the back and that his buddy's sword is now dripping with blood, though.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You could use it to create the illusion of a painful stab in the back and that his buddy's sword is now dripping with blood, though.

The spell says "object, creature, or other visible phenomenon", though, not "scenario".

[Segev]

The spell says "object, creature, or other visible phenomenon", though, not "scenario".

"Blood dripping from a blade" seems like a "visible phenomenon" to me, and a sword is an object. The illusion can explicitly do things that seem like damage (inflicting 1d6 psychic damage in the process).

All you need to do is wait for the guy to not be looking at his friend, then create the illusion of his friend stabbing him, and let it dissipate or (if you can finagle it) become the illusion of blood dripping from his friend's blade, possibly by having the illusion "merge with" the real guy. Any time he's not looking at his buddy, the illusory version says or does something sneaky-mean, possibly damaging. Possibly in full view of the subject, or possibly behind his back, whatever's most convincing.

[Man_Over_Game]

"Blood dripping from a blade" seems like a "visible phenomenon" to me, and a sword is an object. The illusion can explicitly do things that seem like damage (inflicting 1d6 psychic damage in the process).

All you need to do is wait for the guy to not be looking at his friend, then create the illusion of his friend stabbing him, and let it dissipate or (if you can finagle it) become the illusion of blood dripping from his friend's blade, possibly by having the illusion "merge with" the real guy. Any time he's not looking at his buddy, the illusory version says or does something sneaky-mean, possibly damaging. Possibly in full view of the subject, or possibly behind his back, whatever's most convincing.

That's a pretty big balance concern at that point, though. You're really stepping on the toes of Crown of Madness and Phantasmal Killer.

[Coffee_Dragon]

create the illusion of his friend stabbing him

Another good example of something what PF does not do.


Any time he's not looking at his buddy, the illusory version says or does something sneaky-mean, possibly damaging.

PF creates the illusion of a thing that is directly damaging, not an abstract context with random pop-up damaging effects.

[Aquillion]

If they believe the illusion is real why would they spend an action trying to disbelieve it?
They have to have a reason to believe its not real to make such an action.The problem is that Phantasmal Force specifically disallows them from having a reason to believe it's real (they'll rationalize it no matter what until / unless they break free.)

My assumption is that they get a check if they're investigating it at all, regardless of whether they suspect an illusion or not. ie. if you encase them in a stone cell, and they start investigating the walls looking for a way to escape, that counts and gives them the roll to disbelieve.


If you're taking Phantasmal force for the damage, you're choosing poorly. There are other 2nd level spells that do better
The benefit of PF is in it's versatility and it's targeted save; Int is usually poor for most challengesSure, but you should try to word your illusion so that it can do damage in addition to other effects (eg. the acidic fog example.)

[Potato_Priest]

One of my favorite techniques is stealing something and Fantasmal forcing it still being there while you make a casual exit from the premises. If the target asks what spell you cast, claim you were just refreshing your mage armor.

Anything that can get the enemy to attack it is also great. The fact that they always deal no damage to it just means they’ll rationalize their attacks having missed.

[Chronos]

You can also use it to gain information, if you don't know how your victim would react. Suppose, for instance, that you're dealing with multiple powerful foes, and don't know if they're working in league with each other: Show one of them an illusion of the other one, and he's pissed off. Does he take damage? I dunno; it depends on whether he thinks the other one would attack him if angry. Does he grovel, or reprimand, or ask "Who the Hell are you?", or "What are you doing here?"?

[Segev]

That's a pretty big balance concern at that point, though. You're really stepping on the toes of Crown of Madness and Phantasmal Killer.Er... The first one, I'm not stepping on any toes: I'm not compelling either to attack the other. I'm trying to trick the target of my spell into attacking his friend (or at least believing his friend attacked him), and I'm causing the illusion to make him feel phantom pain (but real HP loss) as part of the illusion.

I don't see how I'm stepping on phantasmal killer's toes at all. I'm not imposing a death effect.


Another good example of something what PF does not do.You're going to have to do better than "nuh-uh" to make this case. Why doesn't phantasmal force permit me to create an illusion of his friend, and have that illusory friend stab him? It seems pretty explicit that it can create an illusion of a creature, and have that creature even do things that cause illusory (and psychic) damage. So, assuming his friend is a creature, I should be able to create an illusion of his friend, have said illusion stab him and inflict psychic damage, and then have the illusion either hide when he goes to look at his friend, or merge with said friend so that the illusory blood dripping from the illusory blade seems to be dripping from the blade of his friend's sword. Because phantasmal force expressly states that a subject who hasn't made the Investigation check to see through it rationalizes things that don't make sense, any imperfection in my overlay will be pained "seeing double" or something similar.


PF creates the illusion of a thing that is directly damaging, not an abstract context with random pop-up damaging effects.I fail to see what you're trying to get at, here.

It's an illusion of his buddy holding a sword. Said illusion, being of his buddy, can say things that sound like his buddy, can move around the way his buddy can, and can stab him with that illusory sword.

[Vogie]

That's a pretty big balance concern at that point, though. You're really stepping on the toes of Crown of Madness and Phantasmal Killer.

Exactly.

Phantasmal Force is specifically a nonmoving object would be more along the lines of "giant cactus", "stuck in a spiked net", "stepped in lava", or, my personal favorite "bottomless pit".

You could create the image of an ally hitting them, but the ally wouldn't be able to move, and if they attack the phantasm, they'd interpret their blows passing through as misses. They'd also see the actual ally elsewhere, if you based it off of a person also on the battlefield, and as soon as they step away, they'd notice the phantasm wouldn't follow them. You could use this to make the target waste actions by swinging at nothing, but they wouldn't hurt their allies unless you somehow stuck the ally into that zone the phantasm inhabits.

[Segev]

Exactly.

Phantasmal Force is specifically a nonmoving object would be more along the lines of "giant cactus", "stuck in a spiked net", "stepped in lava", or, my personal favorite "bottomless pit".

You could create the image of an ally hitting them, but the ally wouldn't be able to move, and if they attack the phantasm, they'd interpret their blows passing through as misses. They'd also see the actual ally elsewhere, if you based it off of a person also on the battlefield, and as soon as they step away, they'd notice the phantasm wouldn't follow them. You could use this to make the target waste actions by swinging at nothing, but they wouldn't hurt their allies unless you somehow stuck the ally into that zone the phantasm inhabits.

Wait, what? I thought it allowed you to make creatures, and have them react, much the way silent image does. I can't look up the exact wording right now, as I'm AFB and the SRD seems nto to have the spell in question. I'll have to look this up tonight.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wait, what? I thought it allowed you to make creatures, and have them react, much the way silent image does. I can't look up the exact wording right now, as I'm AFB and the SRD seems nto to have the spell in question. I'll have to look this up tonight.

"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. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs. The phantasm includes sound, temperature, and other stimuli, also evident only to the creature. The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your
spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends.
While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. For example, a target attempting to walk across a phantasmal bridge that spans a chasm falls
once it steps onto the bridge. If the target survives the fall, it still believes that the bridge exists and comes up with some other explanation for its fall—it was pushed, it slipped, or a strong wind might have knocked it off.
An affected target is so convinced of the phantasm's reality that it can even take damage from the illusion. A phantasm created to appear as a creature can attack the target. Similarly. a phantasm created to appear as fire, a pool of acid, or lava can burn the target. Each round on your turn. 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. The target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion."

[Mr. Crowbar]

I've cited the spell above. I don't think you can use PF to convince a foe that their ally is an enemy. PF creates a sensory illusion affecting the creature if they fail a save. It doesn't make them believe something different.

I think this is well within Phantasmal Force's capacities. "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." It's simply creating an illusory "skin" around the other person a la Disguise Self, except only the target sees the illusion.

[Ganymede]

My assumption is that they get a check if they're investigating it at all, regardless of whether they suspect an illusion or not. ie. if you encase them in a stone cell, and they start investigating the walls looking for a way to escape, that counts and gives them the roll to disbelieve.

I think this is important, here. Generally speaking, both PCs and NPCs spend actions investigating stuff all the time; we just don't really notice it: it is often abstracted because there is no risk of failure or glossed over because it happens out of combat. Illusions (especially illusions in combat) are those weird, rare circumstances where it mechanically matters how people spend their time investigating stuff.

Personally, I allow actions tangentially related to dealing with the phantasm to count as the investigative action: dousing a phantasmal flame, prying off a phantasmal bear trap, attacking a phantasmal ogre, and sizing up a phantasmal villager would all grant an investigation check.

Edit: I mean, how else could it possibly be handled? PCs wouldn't know that this is the one time that their investigations won't be glossed over, and NPCs are controlled by the DM, someone that already knows it is an illusion.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think this is important, here. Generally speaking, both PCs and NPCs spend actions investigating stuff all the time; we just don't really notice it: it is often abstracted because there is no risk of failure or glossed over because it happens out of combat. Illusions (especially illusions in combat) are those weird, rare circumstances where it mechanically matters how people spend their time investigating stuff.

Personally, I allow actions tangentially related to dealing with the phantasm to count as the investigative action: dousing a phantasmal flame, prying off a phantasmal bear trap, and attacking a phantasmal ogre, and sizing up a phantasmal villager would all grant an investigation check.

Edit: I mean, how else could it possibly be handled? PCs wouldn't know that this is the one time that their investigations won't be glossed over, and NPCs are controlled by the DM, someone that already knows it is an illusion.

I'd say that since an Investigation check is explicitly mentioned as part of the spell, it must always be an option.

For me, I'd probably have it so that any time the victim is saying to himself "This can't be happening", he'll resort to Investigation checks. That is, the less believable the illusion, the sooner it goes away, which gives more incentive for players to be more creative rather than spamming a universal solution to abuse the fact that the victim tries to justify it in their head. Because the Investigation is a counter to the spell, it should take precedence over the "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm" clause. It also makes using the spell a lot more interesting.

Otherwise, the worry is that someone who's blinded has to spend an Action to make a circumstancial Intelligence check to bypass someone's spell save DC to remove a level 2 spell. It would be overpowered if someone could remove the spell like that, amirite?

[Ganymede]

Because the Investigation is a counter to the spell, it should take precedence over the "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm" clause.

I agree with this. I think that line is a description how the target interprets seemingly incongruous sensory information from the phantasm (such as that caused by a failed investigation check) and not some sort of barrier to making that investigation in the first place.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You're going to have to do better than "nuh-uh" to make this case. Why doesn't phantasmal force permit me to create an illusion of his friend, and have that illusory friend stab him?

It is the case that spells do what they say they do, not do all they don't say they can't do. PF can create an attacking creature. Whether this creature's imaginary appearance can be made to seem like that of an existing person is up to the DM (I wouldn't allow it). Once the illusion is created, it behaves to type, i.e. it attacks, causing psychosomatic damage in the process. Everything else you describe about comings and goings and mergings and effects arising from abstract contexts are things the spell does not provide. There is no mechanism given for moving, changing or controlling the phantasm after casting. It's a figment in someone else's mind, not a Major Image illusion.

(I'll reply to your question in the other thread, but I thought I'd give the guy I was responding to the chance to reply to me first.)

[Vogie]

Wait, what? I thought it allowed you to make creatures, and have them react, much the way silent image does. I can't look up the exact wording right now, as I'm AFB and the SRD seems nto to have the spell in question. I'll have to look this up tonight.


"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. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs. The phantasm includes sound, temperature, and other stimuli, also evident only to the creature. The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends.
While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. For example, a target attempting to walk across a phantasmal bridge that spans a chasm falls once it steps onto the bridge. If the target survives the fall, it still believes that the bridge exists and comes up with some other explanation for its fall—it was pushed, it slipped, or a strong wind might have knocked it off.
An affected target is so convinced of the phantasm's reality that it can even take damage from the illusion. A phantasm created to appear as a creature can attack the target. Similarly. a phantasm created to appear as fire, a pool of acid, or lava can burn the target. Each round on your turn. 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. The target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion."

It doesn't have the "You can use your action to cause the image to move to any spot in range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image" rider that silent image has. It is explicitly worded to be a immobile thing - all of its examples are stationary objects: bridge, fire, acid, lava. Following that logic You could also do a large pile of Thorny vines, an octopus with tentacles everywhere, a web filled with spiders, a fallen nest with hornets buzzing around, a large cage, et cetera.

But the illusion can't leave that 10 ft cube.

If you make a cage around them, and they attack the cage walls, they'll think they're missing it. However, if they rush towards the "wall" of the cage, they'll take damage as they "smash through" the cage, but it won't restrain them.
If you make the thorny vines, they may consider the area difficult terrain, and will take damage as the illusory vines tear at them. But they would be able to walk away from it.

[cZak]

I agree with this. I think that line is a description how the target interprets seemingly incongruous sensory information from the phantasm (such as that caused by a failed investigation check) and not some sort of barrier to making that investigation in the first place.

The Investigation check is an Action
But, I do not see it as an automatic or free check if the circumstance of the illusion seems plausible


"Each round on your turn. 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. The target perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion."

Ok
This makes me think the phantasm is tied to a single location & can only affect the creature if it remains in the area...

Which seems kind of... odd.
If it's a phantasm of a creature attacking, and only in the mind of the affected creature, why would it be limited to a 5' square...

[Man_Over_Game]

It doesn't have the "You can use your action to cause the image to move to any spot in range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image" rider that silent image has. It is explicitly worded to be a immobile thing - all of its examples are stationary objects: bridge, fire, acid, lava. Following that logic You could also do a large pile of Thorny vines, an octopus with tentacles everywhere, a web filled with spiders, a fallen nest with hornets buzzing around, a large cage, et cetera.

But the illusion can't leave that 10 ft cube.

If you make a cage around them, and they attack the cage walls, they'll think they're missing it. However, if they rush towards the "wall" of the cage, they'll take damage as they "smash through" the cage, but it won't restrain them.
If you make the thorny vines, they may consider the area difficult terrain, and will take damage as the illusory vines tear at them. But they would be able to walk away from it.



Hot da**, you make an excellent point. I found a piece that seems to agree with your interpretation:


"The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm."

The victim doesn't rationalize the phantasm, just any illogical outcomes that come from interacting with it. It imagines a creature, but it's dependent upon the victim to interact with the creature, not the other way around. Rather, you aren't creating a ghost that's haunting him; you're creating a ghost that attempts to attack him when (if) he gets close to it. The ghost doesn't inherently follow him, nor does he automatically create a justification as to why the ghost is there.

This really limits the power level of PF, down to what I'd expect from a level 2 versatile spell. Hold Person, for example, is a powerful level 2 spell, but much less versatile.

[Segev]

I think this is well within Phantasmal Force's capacities. "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." It's simply creating an illusory "skin" around the other person a la Disguise Self, except only the target sees the illusion.I am not even really suggesting a "skin" (though I did suggest having it merge into his pose after taking the stab action). I'm suggesting "it's an illusion of a creature, and that creature is a hostile, attacking version of his buddy."


It is the case that spells do what they say they do, not do all they don't say they can't do. PF can create an attacking creature. Whether this creature's imaginary appearance can be made to seem like that of an existing person is up to the DM (I wouldn't allow it). Once the illusion is created, it behaves to type, i.e. it attacks, causing psychosomatic damage in the process. Everything else you describe about comings and goings and mergings and effects arising from abstract contexts are things the spell does not provide. There is no mechanism given for moving, changing or controlling the phantasm after casting. It's a figment in someone else's mind, not a Major Image illusion.

(I'll reply to your question in the other thread, but I thought I'd give the guy I was responding to the chance to reply to me first.)The target's buddy is a creature. There's nothing in the spell saying the limits on what kind of creature it can appear to be, so there's no reason it can't be an illusion of his buddy. Would you argue that silent image can't make an illusion of you walking around in a room, because that would be "you" and not "a creature?" Are you suggesting that "a creature" means you don't even pick what the creature looks like; the DM randomly (or arbitrarily, at least) makes up a creature?

Can you specify nothing save that it's a creature, object, or phenomenon, and the DM decides what form that takes and what, if any, effect that has on the target and how the target perceives it?

I reject that; the fact that you could decide it's a bridge over a chasm in order for the target to have to rationalize why he fell through it tells me that you can specify the creature appearing, whether it be "a generic gorilla" or "his fellow guard standing behind him right now."

Now, I'll grant your point about no clause regarding control over its position or behavior beyond starting it off. Because the caster can't see it, not even an illusionist with Malleable Illusions could alter it! So the trick would be to have it appear behind him, in his buddy's space or near it, say something like, "Nobody will beleive I did it if I do it now while you're facing down these bozos," and stab him in the back, and then stay out of his line of sight and only act out its hostility when he can't see his buddy.

If you really won't allow a SPECIFIC creature, then make it a doppelganger impersonating his buddy.

Either way, the trick is to use it to gaslight him into a fight. He perceives his buddy as attacking him, then denying it, then doing it again. His buddy just sees him flipping out and acting like he's being stabbed and blaming him for it.


It doesn't have the "You can use your action to cause the image to move to any spot in range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image" rider that silent image has. It is explicitly worded to be a immobile thing - all of its examples are stationary objects: bridge, fire, acid, lava. Following that logic You could also do a large pile of Thorny vines, an octopus with tentacles everywhere, a web filled with spiders, a fallen nest with hornets buzzing around, a large cage, et cetera.

But the illusion can't leave that 10 ft cube.

If you make a cage around them, and they attack the cage walls, they'll think they're missing it. However, if they rush towards the "wall" of the cage, they'll take damage as they "smash through" the cage, but it won't restrain them.
If you make the thorny vines, they may consider the area difficult terrain, and will take damage as the illusory vines tear at them. But they would be able to walk away from it.
You do have a point here. But this is why I largely think the spell utterly useless. Especially since "try to smash through the bars" is something a DM will decide ANY creature would OBVIOUSLY try to do. None would be fooled and just cling to them, pantomiming shaking them without realizing they're perfectly capable of moving them or breaking them or going through them.

[Misterwhisper]

Always hated the spell because of how it is written.

The example in the spell of a bridge over a casym is not even possible with the spell unless that bridge is only 10 feet long.

[Ganymede]

The Investigation check is an Action
But, I do not see it as an automatic or free check if the circumstance of the illusion seems plausible


I agree. While I'll allow a creature's action to meaningfully interact with the phantasm count as an investigation check (the attempt to escape from a phantasmal grappler, the attempt to pat out phantasmal flames, etc.), it is still going to gobble up their action for the turn. I will not insist that a PC say "I explicitly take the investigation action in order to unravel this phantasm."

[Segev]

Could be an interesting way to fill somebody in on things without having to monitor it directly nor risk anybody overhearing. A phantasmal force of you talking to them could reasonably answer any questions they have and fill them in on anything you already know, and only they could see or hear it. And since it's your illusion, giving it knowledge you have to convey isn't out of reason.

Could use it as a distraction that will only draw the attention of the one person you want to distract.

Could use it to set up a "did you see that?!" horror movie moment, where only one person actually did see it.

With Twin Spell and Malleable Illusions, you could make yourself able to see it as well, and then could adjust it on the fly. But that's some major multiclassing just to make a 2nd level spell adjustible.

Ultimately, the 1d6 damage won't come up in any situation that can't be ruled as "totally never going to work" by the arguments raised in this thread, and the rest of its functions that actually could do something interesting are just not worth a 2nd level spell slot and your Concentration.

[JoeJ]

A creature who falls into a pit would logically try to climb out rather than attempt to move forward through the pit wall. But unless they can fly, they won't be able to move upward, so they won't succeed in actually getting out of the spell's AoE.

[Man_Over_Game]

It might help some DMs to know that Lead Designer Jeremy Crawford is pretty open on what constitutes an "Investigation Check Action". Rather, it's not that the creature is necessarily making an Action specifically for an Investigation Check, but that the creature is performing an Action upon the illusion and happens to roll an Investigation check to see if their beliefs hold true.

For example, someone attempting to lift a helmet off of their head may spend their action doing so, which happens to trigger the creature's Investigation check. Someone attempting to squeeze past a cage of iron bars with an Action makes their Investigation check while doing so.

I think that's the primary benefit to Phantasmal Killer vs. Phantasmal Force. Phantasmal Force is gone away with a Investigation check triggered by an Action that may help determine whether the illusion is real or not. Phantasmal Killer has no such clause.

[Segev]

A creature who falls into a pit would logically try to climb out rather than attempt to move forward through the pit wall. But unless they can fly, they won't be able to move upward, so they won't succeed in actually getting out of the spell's AoE.

While I'd personally agree with you, the arguments we've seen presented so far would suggest that others feel the attempt would autmoatically succeed in pushing through the walls of the pit, and the target rationalizing how he must have collapsed the wall into a ramp and climbed out.

[JoeJ]

While I'd personally agree with you, the arguments we've seen presented so far would suggest that others feel the attempt would autmoatically succeed in pushing through the walls of the pit, and the target rationalizing how he must have collapsed the wall into a ramp and climbed out.

As a DM, there's no way I'd allow a PC who was targeted with this spell to accidentally move horizontally when they try to climb vertically. So sauce for the goose, etc.

[Contrast]

As a DM, there's no way I'd allow a PC who was targeted with this spell to accidentally move horizontally when they try to climb vertically. So sauce for the goose, etc.

Round 1:

GM: You suddenly find yourself at the bottom of a 10ft pit.
Player: I try to climb out (Investigation check fail)
GM: The walls seem slippery and you can't get a hold.

Round 2:

Player: It's only 10ft right? I'll try a run up and grap hold of the lip.
GM: ... (Investigation check fail)
GM: As you run and jump you suddenly find yourself back on the battlefield. When you look around there appears to be some sort of pillar of stone 10ft high behind you. Maybe someone teleported you out?


Edit - you might be able to delay things if you put some sort of heavy looking lid on the top. Actually thinking about it you could put them in a cage with the key dangling in reachable if only they can do some task that will take a while (like a key in a block of ice or something). As its illusory they will never actually be able to get to it but it will feel like they should be able to and you've given them an outlet for their actions that does not involve directly trying to escape.

[Segev]

Round 1:

GM: You suddenly find yourself at the bottom of a 10ft pit.
Player: I try to climb out (Investigation check fail)
GM: The walls seem slippery and you can't get a hold.

Round 2:

Player: It's only 10ft right? I'll try a run up and grap hold of the lip.
GM: ... (Investigation check fail)
GM: As you run and jump you suddenly find yourself back on the battlefield. When you look around there appears to be some sort of pillar of stone 10ft high behind you. Maybe someone teleported you out?
"Man, I'm so glad I spent a level 2 spell on something he didn't even have to succeed a check to automatically get out of in two rounds. So glad I have my Concentration available for other spells, now, too, since this one's useless now!"

[JoeJ]

Round 1:

GM: You suddenly find yourself at the bottom of a 10ft pit.
Player: I try to climb out (Investigation check fail)
GM: The walls seem slippery and you can't get a hold.

Round 2:

Player: It's only 10ft right? I'll try a run up and grap hold of the lip.
GM: ... (Investigation check fail)
GM: As you run and jump you suddenly find yourself back on the battlefield. When you look around there appears to be some sort of pillar of stone 10ft high behind you. Maybe someone teleported you out?

What's the pillar about? If they used their action to investigate and succeeded on the check, then the spell ends and the illusion vanishes. If they didn't, they failed to get out and so they're still in the pit.

And in neither case would an illusion of a pit transmogrify into a pillar.

[Contrast]

"Man, I'm so glad I spent a level 2 spell on something he didn't even have to succeed a check to automatically get out of in two rounds. So glad I have my Concentration available for other spells, now, too, since this one's useless now!"

Fireball is useless for cooking dinner, does that make it a waste of a level 3 spell slot? I'm suggesting there are better illusions to conjure than a pit, not that the spell is terrible.


What's the pillar about? If they used their action to investigate and succeeded on the check, then the spell ends and the illusion vanishes. If they didn't, they failed to get out and so they're still in the pit.

And in neither case would an illusion of a pit transmogrify into a pillar.

You created an illusion of a pit around the person. The person moved. Is they any pressing reason to believe the illusion of the pit would move as well? What would an illusory stone-walled pit look like from the outside if your ground level was the same as the bottom of the pit? A stone pillar.

If I created an illusion of a bridge hoping they would walk into a chasm but they decided to walk somewhere else would an illusory bridge sneak around after them for a minute remaining in the same relative orientation to them as when I originally conjured it?

As I said in my first post in the thread - many DMs will reasonably let the illusion chase after the target but I personally find it helps in that endeavour if you actually describe an illusion capable of movement or which is in some way attached to the target. This is definitely an 'ask your DM' question though.


Edit - To put it another way, if you use Silent Image to create an illusion of a pit around someone and they teleported or flew out or something, would you have the illusion of the pit follow them or would it stay there? Why are you treating PF different in this regard?

[JoeJ]

You created an illusion of a pit around the person. The person moved. Is they any pressing reason to believe the illusion of the pit would move as well? What would an illusory stone-walled pit look like from the outside? A stone pillar.

If I created an illusion of a bridge hoping they would walk into a chasm but they decided to walk somewhere else would an illusory bridge sneak around after them for a minute remaining in the same relative orientation to them as when I originally conjured it?

As I said in my first post in the thread - many DMs will reasonably let the illusion chase after the target but I personally find it helps in that endeavour if you actually describe an illusion capable of movement or which is in some way attached to the target. This is definitely an 'ask your DM' question though.

First of all, they tried to jump up, not move forward. Unless they have a fly speed, they wouldn't be able to get out of the spell's AoE that way. Even if they did jump high enough they'd just fall back down into it again, taking falling damage.

Second, an illusion of a pit from the outside would look like... a pit. It's a hole in the ground, not a stone pillar.

[Segev]

Fireball is useless for cooking dinner, does that make it a waste of a level 3 spell slot? I'm suggesting there are better illusions to conjure than a pit, not that the spell is terrible.

If every use for fireball anybody could list was responded to by, "Polymorph is useless for bringing back the dead; does that make it a waste of a 4th level spell slot?" do you think you'd find it particularly persuasive that using fireball to damage creatures, to cook dinner, to light fires, or to warm your toes all were met with reasons it would fail utterly at those purposes was not evidence that the spell is useless?

You - and others - are very good at highlighting all the ways phantasmal force doesn't work at anything anybody suggests, no matter what they suggest. You then turn around and - like others - say that it's not meant for those things. And yet, I have yet to hear anybody saying that suggest things it can be used for. Only waiting for the next suggestion so they can shoot it down, and then assure us that, no, it still has use. Honest.

So, tell me: how is it useful enough to be a 2nd level spell that requires your Concentration? What can you use it for? This thread's title is a valid question, but so far, it seems the answer is, "Nothing."

[sophontteks]

It might help some DMs to know that Lead Designer Jeremy Crawford is pretty open on what constitutes an "Investigation Check Action". Rather, it's not that the creature is necessarily making an Action specifically for an Investigation Check, but that the creature is performing an Action upon the illusion and happens to roll an Investigation check to see if their beliefs hold true.

For example, someone attempting to lift a helmet off of their head may spend their action doing so, which happens to trigger the creature's Investigation check. Someone attempting to squeeze past a cage of iron bars with an Action makes their Investigation check while doing so.

I think that's the primary benefit to Phantasmal Killer vs. Phantasmal Force. Phantasmal Force is gone away with a Investigation check triggered by an Action that may help determine whether the illusion is real or not. Phantasmal Killer has no such clause.
Jeremy is very open about things he doesn't want to rule on, but that doesn't make it a ruling in itself. Its just "Up to the DM." Unless there is an ettera or something?

[Contrast]

First of all, they tried to jump up, not move forward. Unless they have a fly speed, they wouldn't be able to get out of the spell's AoE that way. Even if they did jump high enough they'd just fall back down into it again, taking falling damage.

Second, an illusion of a pit from the outside would look like... a pit. It's a hole in the ground, not a stone pillar.

If you run and jump at an illusory wall you will pass through that wall. If we disagree on that then I figure we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you created an illusion of a pit below them rather than above/around them then they would need to rationalise why they were hovering over a pit rather than being at the bottom of one seeing as there wouldn't actually be a pit for them to fall down into. They would probably just step to one side and think to themselves 'phew, glad I jumped aside fast enough to avoid falling down that pit I didn't notice until just now!'.


If every use for fireball anybody could list was responded to by, "Polymorph is useless for bringing back the dead; does that make it a waste of a 4th level spell slot?" do you think you'd find it particularly persuasive that using fireball to damage creatures, to cook dinner, to light fires, or to warm your toes all were met with reasons it would fail utterly at those purposes was not evidence that the spell is useless?

You - and others - are very good at highlighting all the ways phantasmal force doesn't work at anything anybody suggests, no matter what they suggest. You then turn around and - like others - say that it's not meant for those things. And yet, I have yet to hear anybody saying that suggest things it can be used for. Only waiting for the next suggestion so they can shoot it down, and then assure us that, no, it still has use. Honest.

So, tell me: how is it useful enough to be a 2nd level spell that requires your Concentration? What can you use it for? This thread's title is a valid question, but so far, it seems the answer is, "Nothing."

I mean in my first and third (edit - second sorry) posts in this thread I made suggestions for what I think would work (admittedly in an edit you may not have seen on the third second one). I'm playing a bard presently and have the spell. I discussed the spell with my DM and we agreed a general scope of things the spell could do before I chose it and I would encourage anyone thinking of taking illusion spells to take this approach. But sure, don't use the spell if you think it'll cause arguments at your table. That's a sensible approach generally.

[JoeJ]

So, tell me: how is it useful enough to be a 2nd level spell that requires your Concentration? What can you use it for? This thread's title is a valid question, but so far, it seems the answer is, "Nothing."

Here's something I think works. (And I'm writing this wearing my DM hat, so you can read "I think works" as "in my game definitely works")

The illusion is of a pit trap. Assuming the target fails it's saving throw, it believes that it falls 10' into a pit (taking 1d6 falling damage), and the counter-weighted lid of the pit immediately slams shut. At the bottom of the pit is a shallow pool of acid, identifiable as such by the strong acrid smell. Each round thereafter, the target takes another 1d6 damage from the acid until the spell ends.

The target could Teleport out, but climbing will not get it out of the spell's AoE, and with the lid shut they won't be able to see any place to Misty Step to. (In fact, without dark vision, they probably won't see anything at all.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Jeremy is very open about things he doesn't want to rule on, but that doesn't make it a ruling in itself. Its just "Up to the DM." Unless there is an ettera or something?

That wasn't necessarily a "this is what the designers intended this to be", but rather, "this is how the lead designer likes to run it". And I agree. If we were less pedantic about the idea of only using an action explicitly used for Investigating an illusion, we'd have a lot more cooler scenarios involving illusions and how creatures see through them. It also clears up any kind of confusion as to why a creature would be using an Action to investigate something, which is something that has plagued us for years.

Rather than just saying that the creature must Investigate every illusion, the creature just has to make an Action related to that Illusion that leads to an Investigation check.

[Segev]

Okay, in your first post, you suggest an iron helmet blinding them, or a magic handkirchief squeezing their face painfully and blinding them.

The trouble is, neither of these prevent him from simply walking 20 feet away and having either dissappear. Like the grappler in the other thread, he can just free himself, since these things can't "win a grapple check," and can't really follow him.



Edit - you might be able to delay things if you put some sort of heavy looking lid on the top. Actually thinking about it you could put them in a cage with the key dangling in reachable if only they can do some task that will take a while (like a key in a block of ice or something). As its illusory they will never actually be able to get to it but it will feel like they should be able to and you've given them an outlet for their actions that does not involve directly trying to escape.

"I try to run up the wall to get to the lid. Oh, look at that, how'd I wind up outside of it? Ho hum, oh well, time to go on with things. I'm sure glad nobody cast a second level spell on me last round; I'd surely have been inconvenienced for more than a round if they had!"

I'm just using the interpretations you've used to shoot down other applications of it, here.


When interaction with it will always provide excuse to move beyond its range, and nothing prevents doing so, and the target isn't even remotely suffering a mental block against succeeding at feats which should be impossible, it's at best a 1-round action cost. Since it costs the caster 1 round and a 2nd level spell slot, it's actively worse than 3e's daze.

[Contrast]

Okay, in your first post, you suggest an iron helmet blinding them, or a magic handkirchief squeezing their face painfully and blinding them.

The trouble is, neither of these prevent him from simply walking 20 feet away and having either dissappear. Like the grappler in the other thread, he can just free himself, since these things can't "win a grapple check," and can't really follow him.



As I said in my first post in the thread - many DMs will reasonably let the illusion chase after the target but I personally find it helps in that endeavour if you actually describe an illusion capable of movement or which is in some way attached to the target. This is definitely an 'ask your DM' question though.



"I try to run up the wall to get to the lid. Oh, look at that, how'd I wind up outside of it? Ho hum, oh well, time to go on with things. I'm sure glad nobody cast a second level spell on me last round; I'd surely have been inconvenienced for more than a round if they had!"

I'm just using the interpretations you've used to shoot down other applications of it, here.

Which is exactly why I came up with a suggestion to get them to do something other than run at the wall? The key issue is to think about how a PC would feel if the spell were cast on them and if they ran at an illusory wall and you told them they bounced off it because you didn't want the NPC spellcaster to have 'wasted' his second level spell slot.

You seem to have made up your mind though so I guess I'm done here. Hopefully you'll find a DM who will let you use the spell the way you want to without using it that way against you :smallbiggrin:

[JoeJ]

Which is exactly why I came up with a suggestion to get them to do something other than run at the wall? The key issue is to think about how a PC would feel if the spell were cast on them and if they ran at an illusory wall and you told them they bounced off it because you didn't want the NPC spellcaster to have 'wasted' his second level spell slot.

It's not bouncing off the wall. If the target tried to run straight through the wall, they could. But that's not what they would be doing; they'd be taking a couple of steps and trying to jump up out of the pit. That's the wrong direction to get them out of the AoE.

[MaxWilson]

And yet, I have yet to hear anybody saying that suggest things it can be used for.

Creating decoys.

Oh, and also: creating (phantasmal) allies to engender overconfidence or waste protective actions, although in that scenario Major Image or maybe even Silent Image would be just as good.

[Segev]

Which is exactly why I came up with a suggestion to get them to do something other than run at the wall? The key issue is to think about how a PC would feel if the spell were cast on them and if they ran at an illusory wall and you told them they bounced off it because you didn't want the NPC spellcaster to have 'wasted' his second level spell slot.

You seem to have made up your mind though so I guess I'm done here. Hopefully you'll find a DM who will let you use the spell the way you want to without using it that way against you :smallbiggrin:
Actually, in my experience, DMs take advantage of the fact that you don't know it's an illusion, so you do wind up acting as if what he described was really there. The spells work well, for DMs. But when you try to use them similarly, the NPCs coincidentally take actions that happen to reveal the illusions' falsehood. It's not even a malicious GM thing; the meta-knowledge that it's an illusion colors their decision-making, even when they don't mean it to.

Which is why "run at the side of the pit, oh, look, I'm out" comes up with NPCs, but PCs just keep tyring to climb or jump up out of the pit or dig their way out or the like.


Creating decoys.Why pay attention to those? They're not as dangerous as the PCs, dealing only 1d6 per round and staying in a 10 ft. square.


Oh, and also: creating (phantasmal) allies to engender overconfidence or waste protective actions, although in that scenario Major Image or maybe even Silent Image would be just as good."When did we get a 4th guy in our squad? Something's up."

Facetiousness aside, that last one is one I would actually rule typically fails for exactly taht reason: they know how many people they came in with/have been patrolling with/etc. They're not going to be fooled by new "allies" suddenly appearing. And phantasmal force bringing in a new squad of reinforcements might accomplish something, but it wouldn't get anybody wasting buff actions when the reinforcements should probably be bringing their own buffer if that's even a thing these bad guys have.


The reason I push for rules about what the illusion actually DOES and how the character is compelled to act in response to it is precisely because the meta-knowledge is inescapable for the DM. Thus what happens cannot be symmetrical when the DM doesn't have to tell the player that his character is experiencing an illusion, but the player does have to tell the DM this, and literally the only thing making the illusion functional is the fact that the person choosing the actions in response to it doesn't know it's not real.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The illusion is of a pit trap. Assuming the target fails it's saving throw, it believes that it falls 10' into a pit

[...]

with the lid shut they won't be able to see any place to Misty Step to. (In fact, without dark vision, they probably won't see anything at all.)

Hm? PF has no ability to blind anyone to the fact that they did in fact not fall into a pit and that they can perceive their surroundings normally.

[JoeJ]

Hm? PF has no ability to blind anyone to the fact that they did in fact not fall into a pit and that they can perceive their surroundings normally.

Are you saying that the target can see through the illusion even if they fail their save? Because if they can't see through it, then it would have to block their ability to perceive their surroundings.

[Misterwhisper]

People keep trying to create the wrong kinds of things.

You can not create fake wounds on someone, but you could create a phantasmal copy of their friend attacking them.

Why create a helmet on a guy when you could summon thorny vines to wrap them up.

Create an illusion of a powerful wizard casting spells to draw out someone wasting their big spells on your level 2 spell possibly more than once if they fail in the check. Even better if there is cover the illusion can keep popping in and out of like a short wall or behind a tree.

[MaxWilson]

Why pay attention to those? They're not as dangerous as the PCs, dealing only 1d6 per round and staying in a 10 ft. square.

Fortunately the spell forces them to rationalize away the fact the phantasm has, up to this point, only inflicted 1d6 per round. What matters is what the enemy expects the phantasm to do next, and the spell prevents it from realizing that those expectations are always overblown.

And again, I see no indication that they remain stationary.


"When did we get a 4th guy in our squad? Something's up."

Would it be suspicious if the 4th guy were real? Then that's a bad choice of illusion for the situation, unless they'd attack the impostor or something.

I wasn't imagining a "squad" scenario anyway because only one enemy sees the phantasm; more like "let's make the Star Spawn Seer think that the Star Spawn Hulk we killed a minute ago just appeared from around the corner and is hammering away at the squishies." Result: Star Spawn Seer attacks Star Spawn Hulk with psychic comet in order to kill the PCs with reflected psychic damage, but in reality nothing happens because it's attacking a nonexistent target. Depending on the visuals of psychic damage (ask your DM) the Star Spawn Seer may realize that something is up ("these humans [PCs] must be immune to psychic damage!") or has no idea ("let's do it again!"). Both encourage bad decisions on the part of the Seer: giving up on psychic damage is bad (because they're not really immune) and wasting actions on useless attacks is bad.

By the same token, the seer will be more reckless if it thinks it has a meat shield to hide behind.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Are you saying that the target can see through the illusion even if they fail their save? Because if they can't see through it, then it would have to block their ability to perceive their surroundings.

They don't "see through it" because they technically don't "see it" in the first place like they would a normal illusion. The spell makes the target think something is there but doesn't actually impose conditions or restrictions on them.

[JoeJ]

They don't "see through it" because they technically don't "see it" in the first place like they would a normal illusion. The spell makes the target think something is there but doesn't actually impose conditions or restrictions on them.

If they think they see something there, then they obviously also think they're not seeing through it. So if they think they're in a pit with the lid shut, that's all they can see. And if they think that the inside of the pit is dark (because the lid is shut, there are no light sources in the pit, and they don't have dark vision) then darkness is what they'll perceive.

[Chronos]

Quoth Vogie:

If you make a cage around them, and they attack the cage walls, they'll think they're missing it. However, if they rush towards the "wall" of the cage, they'll take damage as they "smash through" the cage, but it won't restrain them.
Yes, if for some reason they do that. But why would they? Have you ever played a character who, upon finding themselves in a cage, has attempted to charge at the bars?

As for a running leap out of a pit: Just make the pit 5' wide, instead of 10' (there's no rule that says that it must entirely fill 10'), so they don't have room to get a running start. They can still jump straight up if they like, but that won't get them out.

[JoeJ]

Yes, if for some reason they do that. But why would they? Have you ever played a character who, upon finding themselves in a cage, has attempted to charge at the bars?

I would think that most people would try to bend the bars, not charge into them. If it's a PC I'd ask, "what are you trying to do, bang your head into the bars?" If the player indicates that is, in fact, what they do, then so be it.

edit: However, I would count the normal reaction of testing the bars to see if there's a weak spot as making an Intelligence (Investigation) check, because they are literally investigating the illusion.


As for a running leap out of a pit: Just make the pit 5' wide, instead of 10' (there's no rule that says that it must entirely fill 10'), so they don't have room to get a running start. They can still jump straight up if they like, but that won't get them out.

That works.

[Ganymede]

As for a running leap out of a pit: Just make the pit 5' wide, instead of 10' (there's no rule that says that it must entirely fill 10'), so they don't have room to get a running start. They can still jump straight up if they like, but that won't get them out.

The grid is an optional rule, and even then the grid does not stop someone from moving in increments smaller than 5'. Just like in real life, a person in a 5' pit is still going to generate some horizontal movement when they jump up to a ledge.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If they think they see something there, then they obviously also think they're not seeing through it. So if they think they're in a pit with the lid shut, that's all they can see. And if they think that the inside of the pit is dark (because the lid is shut, there are no light sources in the pit, and they don't have dark vision) then darkness is what they'll perceive.

If that is how you run it, why does anyone in your world use Blindness/Deafness when you can get both and effective paralysis with an Int save?

[JoeJ]

If that is how you run it, why does anyone in your world use Blindness/Deafness when you can get both and effective paralysis with an Int save?

Blindness/Deafness doesn't require concentration and your friends can't grab you and drag you out of it.

edit: Also, some characters are clerics.

If you can see through the illusion, how does it ever work at all?

[cZak]

That wasn't necessarily a "this is what the designers intended this to be", but rather, "this is how the lead designer likes to run it". And I agree. If we were less pedantic about the idea of only using an action explicitly used for Investigating an illusion, we'd have a lot more cooler scenarios involving illusions and how creatures see through them. It also clears up any kind of confusion as to why a creature would be using an Action to investigate something, which is something that has plagued us for years.

Rather than just saying that the creature must Investigate every illusion, the creature just has to make an Action related to that Illusion that leads to an Investigation check.

An action that would result in a test of the illusions validity would allow for an Intelligence; Investigation check
It would not be a Strength; Athletics check to break the illusion


Failure of the Int;Inv check would be rationalized as a failure of the Str;Athl check.
"I'm just not strong enough to break the ogre's strength"
"I couldn't get a good grip to climb out of the pit"
"This flaming goo on me just won't come off"

[Aquillion]

But the illusion can't leave that 10 ft cube.Strongly disagree. The illusion itself must be 10x10, but after it's created it can do anything that the thing it's an illusion of could do (with the caveat that it will have no effect beyond the 1d6 damage, of course), including move around freely.

[sithlordnergal]

See, I always run it as "an outside force has to help you realize there's something off, then you get the investigation check as your action." For example, if someone uses Phantasmal Force to create a creature that is "attacking" a player/NPC, it is up to the target's allies to tell them it is an illusion. Until then the target will rationalize any outcome and will not get an investigation check.

That said, I do not allow the spell to restrain or inflict difficult terrain on targets. Even blinding a target is a bit iffy. That acidic fog example wouldn't inflict blindness, but I'd be willing to give people half cover if they are being targeted by ranged attacks in such an effect.

[Vogie]

Yes, if for some reason they do that. But why would they? Have you ever played a character who, upon finding themselves in a cage, has attempted to charge at the bars?


If there's a door or equivalent, yes. Nearly every time. Usually shoulder-first.


"Man, I'm so glad I spent a level 2 spell on something he didn't even have to succeed a check to automatically get out of in two rounds. So glad I have my Concentration available for other spells, now, too, since this one's useless now!"

Not necessarily. Even if they escape, the illusion persists, so if you create an illusion of a cage, pool, or pit, the target may pick you up and throw you or a party member in there, still thinking it is real.

I'm a huge fan of using PF to create things that manipulate the battlefield. Just like you can use Create Bonfire to dissuade people to walk through the door, even if it immediately doesn't do instant damage. The illusions could include:

a knight standing next to you or your archer, looking prepared to defend you/them from anyone who rushes them.
a cage around yourself, so the target doesn't think you can be in melee range.
a giant hole in the narrow bridge, with sharp pieces jutting out
Fog cloud, deep shadow, or patch of eerie darkness that stays put, but doesn't impact your allies' sight



It also can do more things if your DM allows illusions to provide either cover or obscurement. Using it to create a wall with a murderhole, for example, would provide those behind it 3/4 cover from the target's ranged attacks.


Strongly disagree. The illusion itself must be 10x10, but after it's created it can do anything that the thing it's an illusion of could do (with the caveat that it will have no effect beyond the 1d6 damage, of course), including move around freely.

You can disagree all you want, but it says nothing like that in the spell text. Silent Image does, but this isn't silent image. It is explicitly defined as immobile, and all of the examples given are immobile. PF creates sound, temperature, and other stimuli, while SI is visual-only. Think of PF as a Mini-Hallucinatory Terrain that can also hurt.

You aren't creating the illusion of a bridge, then making the target believe you are telekinetically picking up that bridge and tossing it 30ft at them (for 1d6 damage? "They must've mostly missed me, phew"). If you create 10 ft cube of lava, minecraft-style, the image won't then have that lava splash out going 15 feet in all directions, expanding the radius of the illusion- It'd just be a cube of lava, hanging out, and faux-burning the target if they're within 5 feet. Phantasmal force is an area of effect spell, even if it an AoE that only one creature can see - I doubt you'd let your players move a Delayed Blast Fireball they just cast after it's landed, even if everyone moves out of the 20-ft range.

It explicitly and specifically says "Each round on your turn. 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", so you can't use it to create an illusory copy of an archer that is standing a distance away shooting arrows, or a cloud of arrows launching them in their direction a la Cordon of Arrows. You could to that with Phantasmal Killer, though.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If you can see through the illusion, how does it ever work at all?

As I said you don't see through it since it's not an illusion; the target thinks it's there even though it isn't. Anything that doesn't rely on un-sight (un-hearing, un-touch etc.) of something which is in fact seen (heard, touched etc.) should be a good start.

[JoeJ]

As I said you don't see through it since it's not an illusion; the target thinks it's there even though it isn't. Anything that doesn't rely on un-sight (un-hearing, un-touch etc.) of something which is in fact seen (heard, touched etc.) should be a good start.

That's not making any sense. It's definitely an illusion; the spell description explicitly calls it that. The target sees it. And hears it, feels it, smells it, and tastes it (as appropriate). And an illusion of anything that is opaque by definition hides whatever is directly behind it. The fact that this illusion is entirely in the target's mind does not change that.

[Chronos]

Quoth Vogie:

You can disagree all you want, but it says nothing like that in the spell text. Silent Image does, but this isn't silent image. It is explicitly defined as immobile, and all of the examples given are immobile.
The examples include creatures, and most creatures are mobile. And I see nowhere that explicitly defines it as immobile.

[Vogie]

The examples include creatures, and most creatures are mobile. And I see nowhere that explicitly defines it as immobile.

On the other hand...

You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15 foot Cube. The image appears at a spot within range and lasts for the duration. The image is purely visual; it isn’t accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.

You can use your action to cause the image to move to any spot within range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image. For example, if you create an image of a creature and move it, you can alter the image so that it appears to be walking.
Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image


Silent image also allows you to create a creature, but explicitly calls out that you have the ability to move the illusion of a creature.

That text does not appear in phantasmal force, thus it is not part of the spell text.

The spell says you can:

create an illusion
No larger than a 10-ft cube
within range (60ft)
that only that target can see. There is no text stating it can leave out of that area, or have any movement whatsoever. There's no range in which it can move, nor the requirement to use an action (like Silent Image does) or bonus action (like spiritual weapon does) for it to do so.

If you choose the image of the creature, it further states:

It can attack the target
deals 1d6 psychic damage on your turn
if it is within the phantasm's area
or within 5ft of it
Which also doesn't give the illusion the ability to move.

But I'm really tired of reciting RAW, so you all can do with it what you will. If you all desperately want it to be "Phantom Wish", I don't really give a crap.

[Coffee_Dragon]

That's not making any sense. It's definitely an illusion; the spell description explicitly calls it that. The target sees it. And hears it, feels it, smells it, and tastes it (as appropriate). And an illusion of anything that is opaque by definition hides whatever is directly behind it. The fact that this illusion is entirely in the target's mind does not change that.

I personally avoid using the word "illusion" for this spell, to avoid giving the impression it works the same as all the illusion spells creating external sounds and images processed normally by the senses, when it clearly doesn't. It's not packages of sensory data, it's a misconception sustained in spite of lack of sensory data. Notably it has no specific license to intercept actual sensory data. If you view the spell as saying it's a normal illusion except visible only to one person, then I guess I see how you'd arrive at a different interpretation of the effect.

[Segev]

But I'm really tired of reciting RAW, so you all can do with it what you will. If you all desperately want it to be "Phantom Wish", I don't really give a crap.

I actually think that it is the fear that letting it do anything at all useful will make it into "phantom wish" that leads to it being nerfed to doing nothing that actually impacts gameplay save wasting the caster's action and Concentration and spell slot. Nerfed use by use, as each individual use suggested will be met by somebody going, "Gasp! That might be effective! How can it be demonstrated not to work? Ah, okay, good, it clearly doesn't actually do anything, and the target will ignore it after a token excuse to explain why he's doing so." For every possible use.

[Aquillion]

You can disagree all you want, but it says nothing like that in the spell text. Silent Image does, but this isn't silent image. It is explicitly defined as immobile, and all of the examples given are immobile.Wrong. It gives the example of creating a creature, and nothing in the text remotely implies that the creature is immobile.

I'm sorry, but you're simply reading something into the text that isn't there. It seems 100% clear and incontestable to me that if you use the spell to create something that should be mobile (like a creature), it will be able to move freely. Your supposition that the creature would be confined to a 10x10 cube isn't supported even slightly by the text - it is 100% clear that the 10x10 cube merely limits the size of initial the illusion, not how it behaves afterwords.

Note that the other spells you are trying to compare it to generally explicitly state the illusion is immobile. This one does not, because it is not. It creates an illusion that behaves the way a real thing of that sort would, so if you create the illusion of a tiger, it will move about the battlefield the way a tiger would (albeit not under your control after being created, though you can specify how you want it to behave when you cast the spell.) That is what the spell says.

EDIT: There's also this (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/14/phantasmal-force-on-a-bag/) Sage Advice, which says that you can put an illusionary bag on someone's head and have it move with them; if your interpretation was accurate, then that wouldn't really make sense.

[Man_Over_Game]

I actually think that it is the fear that letting it do anything at all useful will make it into "phantom wish" that leads to it being nerfed to doing nothing that actually impacts gameplay save wasting the caster's action and Concentration and spell slot. Nerfed use by use, as each individual use suggested will be met by somebody going, "Gasp! That might be effective! How can it be demonstrated not to work? Ah, okay, good, it clearly doesn't actually do anything, and the target will ignore it after a token excuse to explain why he's doing so." For every possible use.

Valid point. I'm going to do an interpretation of what each side's polar choice would result in, based on what people have said in this thread.

Phantom Wish:

Target is:

Blinded
Prone
Restrained

Potentially unable to make an Investigation check to remove the effect.
Creature takes 1d6 Psychic damage every turn.
Only the target can see the illusion.
The target thinks the illusion is real



Phantom Waste:

Creates a 10x10 obstacle.
Deals 1d6 damage when the target is adjacent to the obstacle
Only the target can see the illusion.
The target thinks the illusion is real.

Which one do you guys would say fits more with the power level of a level 2 spell? My vote's on Phantom Waste, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I see some possible middle ground here:

Phantom Menace


Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic
The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute
Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo

[Aquillion]

Valid point. I'm going to do an interpretation of what each side's polar choice would result in, based on what people have said in this thread.

Phantom Wish:

Target is:

Blinded
Prone
Restrained

Potentially unable to make an Investigation check to remove the effect.
Creature takes 1d6 Psychic damage every turn.
Only the target can see the illusion.
The target thinks the illusion is real



Phantom Waste:

Creates a 10x10 obstacle.
Deals 1d6 damage when the target is adjacent to the obstacle
Only the target can see the illusion.
The target thinks the illusion is real.

Which one do you guys would say fits more with the power level of a level 2 spell? My vote's on Phantom Waste, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Disagree that those are the only options. (Prone and restrained in particular don't necessarily follow from the idea that it can move.) There's also:


Phantasmal Force:

Depending on the illusion chosen, target is, potentially, while the caster concentrates:

Blinded
Deafened

Target is always able to make an Investigation check to remove the effect each turn, but may choose not to do so if the illusion gives them no reason to or if it compels them to spend their action doing something else. (DM's call.)
Target may choose to be immobile if they're convinced they cannot move, but is not actually immobile and can convince themselves they've found a way to move if they attempt to do so. Once they have done so once, they're likely to retain the rationalization that they used to move in their head and will keep doing it. (DM's call.)
Target takes 1d6 Psychic damage every turn, provided the illusion was created with the intent of staying near them.
Only the target can see the illusion.
The target thinks the illusion is real.

I think this is precisely appropriate for a 2nd level spell. Phantom Waste is clearly not appropriate for a 2nd level spell (it's basically the same as a 1st level illusion spell, but smaller, only one person can see it, it allows a save, and it does a tiny amount of damage if that person decides to stay near it.) Those heavy negatives are not remotely worth 1d6 damage a turn - Phantom Waste would not pass muster even as a first-level spell. Also, we know from the "bag on head (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/14/phantasmal-force-on-a-bag/)" and to a lesser extent the "blinding phantasmal force (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/14/blinding-phantasmal-force/)" Sage Advice answers that the Phantom Waste interpretation is definitely incorrect, so we can dismiss it out of hand.

Phantom Wish is only overpowered if you ignore the absolutely vital point that the DM can simply come up with reasons for the character to bypass any parts of the illusion except damage and sensory limitations. They are not actually bound, or immobile; they just think they are. So if they flail and take an action, or attempt an action for any reason, it will succeed and they will justify why it did to themselves.

When you take those things into account, you get Phantasmal Force, a completely-appropriate 2nd level spell that matches both the text of the spell and the Sage Advice clarifying it; it is powerful, but much of that power depends on your DM, who can limit it by having the target come up with rationales to bypass it if you abuse it too heavily.

Blinding and deafening can't be avoided, but those are very much reasonable for 2nd level spell that requires concentration, requires a save, doesn't work on entire categories of enemies, and can be broken by an Investigation check. That's why I described that version as Phantasmal Force, because it is Phantasmal Force. Compare / contrast Hold Person, which is more narrow but inflicts a stronger status effect and does so more reliably; the actual Phantasmal Force is about on par with it, and the people who are pushing for tortured rules misinterpetations in trying to nerf it are making a mistake. All you need is for the DM to be willing to have the victim sometimes inadvertently find an excuse to bypass it, which is easy.

[MaxWilson]

I personally avoid using the word "illusion" for this spell, to avoid giving the impression it works the same as all the illusion spells creating external sounds and images processed normally by the senses, when it clearly doesn't. It's not packages of sensory data, it's a misconception sustained in spite of lack of sensory data. Notably it has no specific license to intercept actual sensory data. If you view the spell as saying it's a normal illusion except visible only to one person, then I guess I see how you'd arrive at a different interpretation of the effect.

They should have named it "Psychosis" instead of Phantasmal Force. :-)

[JoeJ]

I personally avoid using the word "illusion" for this spell, to avoid giving the impression it works the same as all the illusion spells creating external sounds and images processed normally by the senses, when it clearly doesn't. It's not packages of sensory data, it's a misconception sustained in spite of lack of sensory data. Notably it has no specific license to intercept actual sensory data. If you view the spell as saying it's a normal illusion except visible only to one person, then I guess I see how you'd arrive at a different interpretation of the effect.

I have no idea how you can get that from the spell description. It's a visible phenomenon that is perceived by the target. Maybe it would have been better to call it a hallucination, but it seems unambiguous to me that the text describes something that the target is seeing (and hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, as applicable).

But even using your interpretation, if somebody has a misconception that an opaque object is right in front of them, then they must also have a misconception that they aren't seeing what is direction "behind" that object.

[MaxWilson]

I have no idea how you can get that from the spell description. It's a visible phenomenon that is perceived by the target. Maybe it would have been better to call it a hallucination, but it seems unambiguous to me that the text describes something that the target is seeing (and hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, as applicable).

But even using your interpretation, if somebody has a misconception that an opaque object is right in front of them, then they must also have a misconception that they aren't seeing what is direction "behind" that object.

If I'm psychotic enough to believe that I'm trapped in a dark pit, does that necessarily mean that I won't flinch when you feign a punch to my face? Or will I just rationalize away my flinch without thinking too hard about why I did it?

I could live with a DM who says Phantasmal Force can cause real blindness, or with a DM who says it causes phantom "blindness" that affects decision-making without actually giving advantage to enemy attacks. Frankly, both interpretations seem reasonable to me.

[Contrast]

Target may choose to be immobile if they're convinced they cannot move, but is not actually immobile and can convince themselves they've found a way to move if they attempt to do so. Once they have done so once, they're likely to retain the rationalization that they used to move in their head and will keep doing it. (DM's call.)

Hmm. That's actually made me ponder an interesting point and I'm not sure how I would resolve it.

I'd be reasonably happy to let a player use PF to create an illusory pass which they could hand over to the guard. If the guard had been forewarned that all passes presented that would be fake and attempted to rip it up I would probably have the illusory paper act as real paper would and he'd be left holding 2 illusory halves.

On the other hand, earlier in the thread I suggested offering people a way to escape their predicament that they couldn't utilise (an illusory ladder out of an illusory pit, for example, to make them less likely to try the walls themselves). The specific example I used was a cage with a key inside...but the key was in a block of ice. They could try to melt/break the block but couldn't because it was illusory and would rationalise that away.

...except those two things conflict with each other.

To simplify the argument, if you use PF to create an illusory boulder, can the target pick it up or not? Does the caster get to choose to make it unliftable when they create the illusion? Or does it depend on the size of the illusory boulder and whether the target thinks they can lift it?

[Coffee_Dragon]

But even using your interpretation, if somebody has a misconception that an opaque object is right in front of them, then they must also have a misconception that they aren't seeing what is direction "behind" that object.

This presupposes that a person's sense of reality plays back to them just like an actual movie and that any misconception they have must be given a definite representation to be pasted into this internal movie just as you'd do with an actual movie and observed with the same qualities and clarity as a non-misconception. That is not the case.

[MaxWilson]

To simplify the argument, if you use PF to create an illusory boulder, can the target pick it up or not? Does the caster get to choose to make it unliftable when they create the illusion? Or does it depend on the size of the illusory boulder and whether the target thinks they can lift it?

Since the spell is all in the mind, I'd go with this bit in bold: it depends on what the target expects. But the boulder exerts no real, physical effects, and the target will continue to perceive the boulder as real whether or not it manages to lift it.

Can you lift an imaginary boulder while playing Charades?

[Aquillion]

Hmm. That's actually made me ponder an interesting point and I'm not sure how I would resolve it.

I'd be reasonably happy to let a player use PF to create an illusory pass which they could hand over to the guard. If the guard had been forewarned that all passes presented that would be fake and attempted to rip it up I would probably have the illusory paper act as real paper would and he'd be left holding 2 illusory halves.

On the other hand, earlier in the thread I suggested offering people a way to escape their predicament that they couldn't utilise (an illusory ladder out of an illusory pit, for example, to make them less likely to try the walls themselves). The specific example I used was a cage with a key inside...but the key was in a block of ice. They could try to melt/break the block but couldn't because it was illusory and would rationalise that away.

...except those two things conflict with each other.

To simplify the argument, if you use PF to create an illusory boulder, can the target pick it up or not? Does the caster get to choose to make it unliftable when they create the illusion? Or does it depend on the size of the illusory boulder and whether the target thinks they can lift it?
The illusion is not real. Unless you specified that it will respond to their interactions when casting it, the target cannot actually interact with it in a meaningful way (aside from taking damage from it and feeling sensory effects), and it does not affect them in a meaningful way (aside from damage and potentially limiting their senses.) That said, of course a DM can allow some stuff by rule of cool. But I'd say:


The pass. The guard fails to rip it up, and justifies that somehow. Depending on the strictness of your interpretation, they might even fail to hold it - probably they'd justify that by thinking they dropped it - but that might be a bit much. I think you could specify "a pass that the target can carry around" or "a pass that the target can rip up" when casting it if you wanted to, but if you didn't specify, they'd be unable to do those things. Conversely, you could specify "a pass that always slips through the target's fingers" if you wanted to!

The pit. They can't technically use the ladder... but the pit isn't real, either. If they try to leave the pit, they'll succeed (because it wasn't real to begin with) and will justify it however works best for them (probably by saying that they managed to successfully use the ladder somehow, even if you intended for it to be impossible.) Debatably, under the "illusion can move if designed to do so" interpretation, you could create the illusion of a magic pit that they're always at the bottom of no matter what they do or where they go, but that could lead to some odd results (eg. they can still move next to your fighter and attack him - so they'd probably interpret it as "I tried to escape the pit, and somehow failed, but the fighter I was trying to reach fell in, so now I can attack them." Or they might simply realize the pit is magic and moving with them, but that they can make members of your group 'fall into' it with them to fight them. Basically they would technically be stuck in the pit but the DM could come up with clever justifications for them to ignore basically all the drawbacks - whenever they want to reach something, provided they make some attempt, they'll succeed as if the pit wasn't there and will then justify to themselves how they did so.)

Cage with the key. This is actually much more clever. The block of ice isn't real, so they're wasting their time interacting with it, and since they're not actually trying to leave the cage, they won't. But if they give up on the block of ice and tried to body-rush the bars, they'll escape. (Again, you could theoretically create a magic cage that moves with them, which might be a bit better in this case, since they'd justify it as eg. "I rammed into the edge of the cage and it moved a bit, but I'm still inside." Although once they realize they can move the cage, they could drag it around and hit people outside it through the bars or something, at which point they're ignoring most of your illusion.) Also, the ice isn't necessary. You can create a cage with the key just lying in the center - but every time they try to pick it up, it slips through their fingers. However, remember that while they'll be convinced by the illusion, they're still going to know the cage is magic on account of it appearing when you cast a spell, which might make them ignore the key (since it doesn't take a genius to realize it's a trap; why would your spell create a cage with the key inside.)

The illusionary boulder. It isn't real. The default is that it's unliftable (and they'll justify to themselves why they're failing.) I would say you could probably specify that it's liftable if you want to, but you'd have to specifically specify this. The size is irrelevant - you could create a tiny pebble that can never be lifted no matter what, or an enormous boulder that can be lifted with ease. Note, however, that it's still an illusion, so if you block them off with it and they try to push or squeeze through, they'll succeed automatically and justify to themselves how they did so.


Like all illusions, the power of Phantasmal Force depends on what your DM lets you get away with.

Side note: Technically the DM doesn't have to tell you what the target sees after you've cast the illusion. So if they don't want to actually come up with justifications for ignoring the illusion, they don't have to - they can just describe the target looking wild-eyed and acting slightly strangely, but still ultimately taking whatever actions they feel are best.

The only things I feel they really can't ignore are blindness, deafness, and damage, which are (if that was all the spell did) slightly on the weak side for a 2nd level spell - eg. compare Heat Metal, which inflicts many of the same disadvantages of blindness, does far more damage, and doesn't allow a save. It has limitations, but so does Phantasmal Force.

[JoeJ]

This presupposes that a person's sense of reality plays back to them just like an actual movie and that any misconception they have must be given a definite representation to be pasted into this internal movie just as you'd do with an actual movie and observed with the same qualities and clarity as a non-misconception. That is not the case.

If that's how you want to rule it, fine. Do you also raise this issue the phantasmal force creates the illusion of a wall? Because I'm at a loss to understand how the misconception of being in a hole would be any more prone to being disrupted by the senses than would the misconception that one is looking at a wall.

[Segev]

To simplify the argument, if you use PF to create an illusory boulder, can the target pick it up or not? Does the caster get to choose to make it unliftable when they create the illusion? Or does it depend on the size of the illusory boulder and whether the target thinks they can lift it?

This is just a ruling, and/or suggestion, not a statement of how the spell definitely works, but I would take the investigation DC and use it as a Strength Check DC for lifting the boulder. It wouldn't actually help see through the illusion, but essentially, if you try to do something "theoretically possible" in terms of interaction, and there's any doubt as to whether you would succeed or fail at the action, I'd probably call for an appropriate roll as if you were really trying it at the Investigation DC. Succeed, and you do the thing to the illusion, which responds appropriately. Fail, and the illusion "responds" by resisting.

Now, this is with my preferred "mental block" ruling in place: try to lift the boulder, but fail, and you feel it to be too heavy, so you pantomime trying and failing to heft an enormously heavy rock. (Try, and succeed, and you still pantomime lifting something heavy, because it FEELS heavy to you, even though it's not.)

With the ruling that you just rationalize discrepancies, you try and heft the boulder and automatically succeed, feeling it as being heavy but not so heavy you can't lift it. Or maybe (DM's call) you try and feel it slip off your hands, because there's no actual resistance so you stand up just fine but the boulder isn't moving that fast because it's not an illusion of a light-weight styrofoam prop meant to be hurled by a lizardman at a shirtless captain.

[Aquillion]

Aside, I just thought of another great Phantasmal Force usage: Make them think that their weapon has turned into a vicious serpent that constantly follows and attacks them. They'll drop their weapon and still take damage.

(But, again, while this is powerful, it's probably less so than Heat Metal, which - while it offers a save for that particular usage - has a really nasty effect whether they succeed or fail.)

[JoeJ]

The pit. They can't technically use the ladder... but the pit isn't real, either. If they try to leave the pit, they'll succeed (because it wasn't real to begin with) and will justify it however works best for them (probably by saying that they managed to successfully use the ladder somehow, even if you intended for it to be impossible.) Debatably, under the "illusion can move if designed to do so" interpretation, you could create the illusion of a magic pit that they're always at the bottom of no matter what they do or where they go, but that could lead to some odd results (eg. they can still move next to your fighter and attack him - so they'd probably interpret it as "I tried to escape the pit, and somehow failed, but the fighter I was trying to reach fell in, so now I can attack them." Or they might simply realize the pit is magic and moving with them, but that they can make members of your group 'fall into' it with them to fight them. Basically they would technically be stuck in the pit but the DM could come up with clever justifications for them to ignore basically all the drawbacks - whenever they want to reach something, provided they make some attempt, they'll succeed as if the pit wasn't there and will then justify to themselves how they did so.)

I'd rule that if they try to leave the pit by walking through the wall, they'll succeed. If they try to climb out they'll spend their entire movement acting like a mime climbing an invisible ladder and not actually move at all. The same with trying to jump up and catch the edge; they'll spend their entire movement jumping in place.

[Segev]

Hm. A gigantic translucent globe filled with acid, surrounding them. They feel like they're melting (1d6/round) and drowning (no effect, but makes them FEEL like they should be holding their breath), and no way they think they can get into melee or shoot at enemies with ranged attacks. If they move out of it, the thing just rolls under them like a hamster ball. And again, they feel hindered by the liquid viscocity of the acid.

[JoeJ]

Hm. A gigantic translucent globe filled with acid, surrounding them. They feel like they're melting (1d6/round) and drowning (no effect, but makes them FEEL like they should be holding their breath), and no way they think they can get into melee or shoot at enemies with ranged attacks. If they move out of it, the thing just rolls under them like a hamster ball. And again, they feel hindered by the liquid viscocity of the acid.

If you agree with the arguments that the illusion can't move, which I find convincing, then the ball won't roll with them. Instead, I'd suggest making it a smooth-sided open top container that they can try (and fail) to climb out of. If the sides appear to be glass, then they might also try punching or hitting with a weapon, which also won't work.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hm. A gigantic translucent globe filled with acid, surrounding them. They feel like they're melting (1d6/round) and drowning (no effect, but makes them FEEL like they should be holding their breath), and no way they think they can get into melee or shoot at enemies with ranged attacks. If they move out of it, the thing just rolls under them like a hamster ball. And again, they feel hindered by the liquid viscocity of the acid.

Heh, just realized something. Most of the examples people have been bringing up are things like Cloudkill that follows you, or Acid Watery Sphere, or Earthbind, or the such.

Coincidentally, there's one other spell that duplicates spells.

[cZak]

I'd rule that if they try to leave the pit by walking through the wall, they'll succeed. If they try to climb out they'll spend their entire movement acting like a mime climbing an invisible ladder and not actually move at all. The same with trying to jump up and catch the edge; they'll spend their entire movement jumping in place.

Why would they think they could walk out of the pit through the wall

[Man_Over_Game]

Why would they think they could walk out of the pit through the wall

When you climb a ledge, don't you usually touch it? Press your weight against it? Try to get a grip? You're pressing forward, even if moving forward isn't the goal.

[JoeJ]

Why would they think they could walk out of the pit through the wall

An NPC generally would not think that, so they'd spend their turn trying something else. A PC will try whatever the player says they try.

[cZak]

When you climb a ledge, don't you usually touch it? Press your weight against it? Try to get a grip? You're pressing forward, even if moving forward isn't the goal.

That would be an attempt to climb it, implying you believe it is real
Resulting in an interaction with and allowing an Investigation check

Investigation check
Succeed: the walls become translucent and you step forward, free of the spell
Fail: the walls are too slick, you're in the pit. Try again

[Coffee_Dragon]

If that's how you want to rule it, fine. Do you also raise this issue the phantasmal force creates the illusion of a wall? Because I'm at a loss to understand how the misconception of being in a hole would be any more prone to being disrupted by the senses than would the misconception that one is looking at a wall.

Example 1: Wall phantasm in a corridor, beyond the wall are a couple of gnomes assembling a machine gun. The target is aware of the gnomes, and may justify this by thinking the wall has slits or missing bricks in it. The caster may not pre-empt this by dictating for instance that the wall must appear completely solid, opaque and intact. As a corollary, the target might try to fire ranged weapons through the barrier and succeed.

Example 2: Wall phantasm in the middle of a room with nothing particularly interesting on the walls. The target is not aware of nothing actually being obscured by the wall, much like not being aware of your blind spots or the lack of environmental detail in a dream.

An issue with the pit compared to the wall, which doesn't directly have to do with visibility, is that in my view the phantasm of a hole cannot force the experience of falling into it onto the target, any more than the phantasm of an ogre can force the experience of having been brained; rather, the target will readily find they haven't fallen (there's nothing to fall into) and rationalize this as having cleverly avoided the pit or found some support.

Parenthetically there is also a perennial discussion whether holes are valid/effective objects or phenomena for illusions, but as far as believing they are there goes, it actually makes more sense with the "in the mind, not the senses" interpretation of PF than it does for regular light-based illusions.

[JoeJ]

Example 1: Wall phantasm in a corridor, beyond the wall are a couple of gnomes assembling a machine gun. The target is aware of the gnomes, and may justify this by thinking the wall has slits or missing bricks in it. The caster may not pre-empt this by dictating for instance that the wall must appear completely solid, opaque and intact. As a corollary, the target might try to fire ranged weapons through the barrier and succeed.

Example 2: Wall phantasm in the middle of a room with nothing particularly interesting on the walls. The target is not aware of nothing actually being obscured by the wall, much like not being aware of your blind spots or the lack of environmental detail in a dream.

It doesn't sound like Phantasmal Force is good for very much in your game. Does anybody ever use it?


An issue with the pit compared to the wall, which doesn't directly have to do with visibility, is that in my view the phantasm of a hole cannot force the experience of falling into it onto the target, any more than the phantasm of an ogre can force the experience of having been brained; rather, the target will readily find they haven't fallen (there's nothing to fall into) and rationalize this as having cleverly avoided the pit or found some support.

The spell very definitely can force the target to experience being brained by an ogre for 1d6 damage. Why would falling into a pit and taking 1d6 damage be any different?


Parenthetically there is also a perennial discussion whether holes are valid/effective objects or phenomena for illusions, but as far as believing they are there goes, it actually makes more sense with the "in the mind, not the senses" interpretation of PF than it does for regular light-based illusions.

Since the spell description specifically says you can create an "object, creature, or other visible phenomenon of your choice," it's difficult to imagine how a hole would not be included.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It doesn't sound like Phantasmal Force is good for very much in your game. Does anybody ever use it?

Once; I described it in the other PF thread.

People have been saying lots of variations of "If PF loses utility X then it's worthless", but I don't tend to find these very convincing. It doesn't need the versatility of a regular illusion spell coupled with unusual save, added robustness, a condition smorgasbord and damage topping to be a legitimate spell. (I do believe it's more effective in the hands of PCs than NPCs, since players are given unlimited license to metagame their understanding of it, and more so the more power you invest in it.)


The spell very definitely can force the target to experience being brained by an ogre for 1d6 damage. Why would falling into a pit and taking 1d6 damage be any different?

By "brained" I meant something more substantial than sparring for 1d6 damage, e.g. flying across the room and landing in a crumpled heap. The ogre (or a phantasmal ram trap) doesn't make you think getting hit with a very fast swing of a very heavy object has displaced you a number of feet and you are now occupying a different physical location for the same reason the pit doesn't make you think you have dropped to a different elevation when you haven't. The target is not forced to lose themselves in a scenario which increasingly diverges from reality, instead they get (more or less) illogical outcomes as described in the spell.


Since the spell description specifically says you can create an "object, creature, or other visible phenomenon of your choice," it's difficult to imagine how a hole would not be included.

So you would expect the corresponding discussion for Silent Image, which uses the same wording, to be quickly settled? :smallsmile:

[JoeJ]

Once; I described it in the other PF thread.

People have been saying lots of variations of "If PF loses utility X then it's worthless", but I don't tend to find these very convincing. It doesn't need the versatility of a regular illusion spell coupled with unusual save, added robustness, a condition smorgasbord and damage topping to be a legitimate spell. (I do believe it's more effective in the hands of PCs than NPCs, since players are given unlimited license to metagame their understanding of it, and more so the more power you invest in it.)

Using it against the PCs is one important way the players can learn how you rule on spells. It also gives you a baseline to use when deciding how NPCs react. If the spell is effective in fooling the PCs, it should be equally effective against NPCs in similar circumstances.


By "brained" I meant something more substantial than sparring for 1d6 damage, e.g. flying across the room and landing in a crumpled heap. The ogre (or a phantasmal ram trap) doesn't make you think getting hit with a very fast swing of a very heavy object has displaced you a number of feet and you are now occupying a different physical location for the same reason the pit doesn't make you think you have dropped to a different elevation when you haven't. The target is not forced to lose themselves in a scenario which increasingly diverges from reality, instead they get (more or less) illogical outcomes as described in the spell.

Getting struck by a real ogre doesn't cause a character to fly across the room and land in a crumpled heap. The illusion IOW acts just like getting hit by an actual ogre (who rolled rather low for damage).

I don't see anything in the spell description that says a phantasmal force of a pit trap fails to work like an actual pit trap on a target that fails it's save.


So you would expect the corresponding discussion for Silent Image, which uses the same wording, to be quickly settled? :smallsmile:

It's already settled as far as I'm concerned. Illusions of pits are possible even with Minor Image, (although you can't feel yourself falling into something that's visual only, or take falling damage from a illusion spell that doesn't do damage). I can't control how anybody else rules it in their game.

[Chronos]

So you'd think you were very lucky that the ogre rolled so low.

As for the paperwork handed to the guard, that's probably not a very good use for the spell, because that's one situation where the victim almost certainly will make an Investigation check. If the guard's not very intelligent, he might still fail, of course, but you want to minimize the opportunities for that.

[Segev]

I don't see anything in the spell description that says a phantasmal force of a pit trap fails to work like an actual pit trap on a target that fails it's save.Phantasmal force is interesting because it doesn't exclude technical invisibility in what it can do, given its ability to create phenomena and its all-sensory fooling. I would argue, but not expect all to agree, that the sense of falling is, in fact, a sensory input, and thus something it can simulate.


It's already settled as far as I'm concerned. Illusions of pits are possible even with Minor Image, (although you can't feel yourself falling into something that's visual only, or take falling damage from a illusion spell that doesn't do damage). I can't control how anybody else rules it in their game.I will just point out here that it may be settled for your tables, but I've run into relatively few who would allow illusions of holes for the simple reason that the illusion itself would be hidden by the ground being in the way. Minor illusion and even silent image can't create illusions of absense, only presence. But, if it works in your games, more power to you!


So you'd think you were very lucky that the ogre rolled so low.

As for the paperwork handed to the guard, that's probably not a very good use for the spell, because that's one situation where the victim almost certainly will make an Investigation check. If the guard's not very intelligent, he might still fail, of course, but you want to minimize the opportunities for that.My issue with "paperwork to the guard" is more that we have better spells for that (illusory script doesn't even take a spell slot), and that it's thus not the best use of the spell. Still, it is versatile and would work in that it's going to have all the relevant sensory inputs, where silent image would not. I forget if even major image has tactile components.

If you use the "it's just in the target's mind" version, rather than "it's an actual illusion, just only perceptible by him," you dodge the stickier arguments you get in other threads about minor illusion and silent image and whether the illusion can react to interaction, e.g. by letting you pantomime picking up the illusory coin or carry the illusory invitation scroll/unroll it to display.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Getting struck by a real ogre doesn't cause a character to fly across the room and land in a crumpled heap. The illusion IOW acts just like getting hit by an actual ogre (who rolled rather low for damage).

Well, we seem to agree that the caster cannot say, "The phantasm is an ogre that knocks the target into what they are obliged to think is a helpless, pain-stricken stupor", yet you do think the caster can say, "The phantasm is a pit trap which traps the target in what they are obliged to think is a tight dark space out of reach from their actual surroundings", invoking external rules to claim a difference. This distinction is not entirely convincing to me. As long as we're not actually using specific resolution systems, dictating and narrating the one is really no more complex or unbelievable than the other. However:


I don't see anything in the spell description that says a phantasmal force of a pit trap fails to work like an actual pit trap on a target that fails it's save.

Something didn't occur to me until now: by "fails its save", are you referring not to the Int save of PF, but to the Dex save of a standard issue pit trap, or in other words, saying the perceived outcome of pit trap interaction is determined using the mechanics of actual pit traps? If that is the case then it explains the ogre discrepancy at least partially. (I had assumed you meant the target was trapped automatically; there certainly seem to be others arguing that this should follow from a well-specified phantasm, and why specify badly.) It's just that I find no support in Phantasmal Force that invoking external rules is how you adjudicate its effects.

Edit:

Is the sentence "the target treats the phantasm as if it were real" the crux of it? It can seemingly be read:

"The target, as a story element, approaches the phantasm as if it were real, as a story element."

Or:

"The target, as a game element, interacts with the phantasm as if it were real, as a game element."

Clearly it makes for a significant difference in how to proceed with adjudication.

[JoeJ]

I will just point out here that it may be settled for your tables, but I've run into relatively few who would allow illusions of holes for the simple reason that the illusion itself would be hidden by the ground being in the way. Minor illusion and even silent image can't create illusions of absense, only presence. But, if it works in your games, more power to you!

As I've said in previous threads dealing with this issue, I consider that the illusion hides the ground, not the other way around. Just like the image of an open space in a mirror hides the wall behind that mirror. The illusion is not occupying the same space as the ground because it's not occupying space at all; it's literally an optical illusion.


Well, we seem to agree that the caster cannot say, "The phantasm is an ogre that knocks the target into what they are obliged to think is a helpless, pain-stricken stupor", yet you do think the caster can say, "The phantasm is a pit trap which traps the target in what they are obliged to think is a tight dark space out of reach from their actual surroundings", invoking external rules to claim a difference.

On the contrary, the ogre can knock the target into a helpless pain-stricken stupor. It just has to do it in increments of 1d6 damage until the target is incapacitated. Depending on the target, that may take many attacks, or it might be just one. I would also allow an ogre to knock the target prone instead of doing damage.


Something didn't occur to me until now: by "fails its save", are you referring not to the Int save of PF, but to the Dex save of a standard issue pit trap, or in other words, saying the perceived outcome of pit trap interaction is determined using the mechanics of actual pit traps? If that is the case then it explains the ogre discrepancy at least partially. (I had assumed you meant the target was trapped automatically; there certainly seem to be others arguing that this should follow from a well-specified phantasm, and why specify badly.) It's just that I find no support in Phantasmal Force that invoking external rules is how you adjudicate its effects.

What? No, it's the Intelligence save specified by the spell description. For a PC, though, I would just tell them to roll a d20 and I'd add the appropriate modifier from my own copy of their character sheet.

[Coffee_Dragon]

On the contrary, the ogre can knock the target into a helpless pain-stricken stupor. It just has to do it in increments of 1d6 damage until the target is incapacitated. Depending on the target, that may take many attacks, or it might be just one. I would also allow an ogre to knock the target prone instead of doing damage.

So is it as simple as "it states a thing creatures can do, so creatures do just that (and maybe marginally more/different), but it doesn't state what contraptions can do, so they're free to do whatever"?

[JoeJ]

So is it as simple as "it states a thing creatures can do, so creatures do just that (and maybe marginally more/different), but it doesn't state what contraptions can do, so they're free to do whatever"?

What's the "it" you're asking about? Ogres are able to attack. (Ogres can do a lot of other things too, but attacking was the example given.) Pit traps are able to cause people to fall in. Because neither of them is real, the damage in both cases is limited to what Phantasmal Force is able to produce.

[Segev]

I think part of the question is: can phantasmal force do anything other than 1d6 damage per round? Can the fact that it's an illusion actually impact behavior of the target, or is the target able to simply ignore it entirely except for the damage, because illusions aren't real?

[Aquillion]

Heh, just realized something. Most of the examples people have been bringing up are things like Cloudkill that follows you, or Acid Watery Sphere, or Earthbind, or the such.Except that Phantasmal Force only reliably does 1d6 damage a turn, plus maybe sensory issues, and only on one person, and allows a save (which most of those don't), and doesn't affect certain types of targets, and doesn't work if they're immune to illusions.

Duplicating other spells is part of what Illusions do; they just have severe disadvantages and limitations. Phantasmal Force's thing has always been that it bends those limitations slightly (eg. some damage, full sensory and motion effects at a slightly lower level than you'd usually get them) in exchange for adding additional limitations (eg. only affects one creature, allows an initial save, doesn't work on constructs or undead, doesn't let you control it directly after it's cast.)

I mean, compare / contrast Silent Image. Phantasmal Force is a level higher, but has the following drawbacks:


Illusion is smaller (10x10 vs 15x15).
Allows a save. This is a huge drawback - Phantasmal Force will sometimes just do nothing (At the level you get it, ~25% of the time even against people with no int save bonus.)
Only affects one target (sometimes an advantage, of course.)
No control over it after casting - it does what you initially set it up to do and nothing else.
No effect on undead or constructs.
Must be cast on a target; cannot be set up in advance and left in place.


In exchange for this, you get the following advantages:


Small amount of damage.
Full sensory effects.
Doesn't require an action to make it move.
Only the victim sees it (sometimes an advantage.)
Target is forced to believe it and will justify it rather than doubting it until / unless they succeed on the invest check (but the DM can have them 'coincidentally' bypass it in various ways if you push it too far.)


Given the list of disadvantages (some of them, like the save, being very significant), I think that that's a reasonable trade-off for a spell one level higher.

The reality is that "situationally disable a target who fails a save" is already handled by lots of 2nd level spells - Hold Person, Suggestion, Web, etc. Heck, Hideous Laughter does it at 1st level. I feel like a lot of people are overestimating Phantasmal Force's power because a lot of its applications feel powerful (ie. describing a really nasty-seeming effect.)

But the end result is still "you take 1d6 damage a turn and are only partially restrained or impeded for a duration of concentration." That's in-line with many similar second-level spells (which don't do the damage, but also restrain more reliably.)

Don't get me wrong, it's a very powerful spell, but a lot of its power comes from its versatility rather than the lockdown ideas people are mentioning here - and I'm not convinced it's stronger than Suggestion at that (ie. with suggestion, you can just tell someone to act in a specific way, rather than trying to trick them with illusions.)


I think part of the question is: can phantasmal force do anything other than 1d6 damage per round? Can the fact that it's an illusion actually impact behavior of the target, or is the target able to simply ignore it entirely except for the damage, because illusions aren't real?
The answer to that is mixed and depends heavily on your DM. The illusion is real and the target will react as if it's real. However, if they interact with it in any way, they'll pass harmlessly through it, and will then justify this (and you don't get to choose how they justify it - the DM chooses that.)

You can totally use Phantasmal Force to cause someone to be tied up with ropes! However, the ropes aren't real and won't actually restrain them. Your DM would be entirely justified in saying "they immediately notice they can still move, and justify this by assuming that the ropes are loose enough to let them do whatever." (And they don't even have to explain this to you, because you don't see what's in the target's mind after casting the spell.)

I disagree with a lot of the interpretations people are using above to try and nerf the spell, but that's because the reality is that the DM still has a huge amount of leeway to shut down abusive usages by controlling how the target reacts.

That's why I feel my interpretation is the most balanced - even against a "mean DM" who maximizes the target's ability to ignore the illusions, blindness + deafness + 1d6 damage is reasonably ok for a spell with its restrictions (one person, save, concentration, limits on who it can affect, can be broken with investigation check, etc.) Not great - if your DM is always going to render the illusion aspect moot, something like Suggestion or Hold Person is better - but reasonable given the versatility of the spell.

[Coffee_Dragon]

What's the "it" you're asking about?

The spell description, our source for how to apply the spell.


Ogres are able to attack. (Ogres can do a lot of other things too, but attacking was the example given.) Pit traps are able to cause people to fall in. Because neither of them is real, the damage in both cases is limited to what Phantasmal Force is able to produce.

Yeah, but you also seem to say the pit trap can cause other effects amounting to conditions.


I think part of the question is: can phantasmal force do anything other than 1d6 damage per round? Can the fact that it's an illusion actually impact behavior of the target, or is the target able to simply ignore it entirely except for the damage, because illusions aren't real?

I don't think there's anyone saying the target doesn't think the phantasm is real though? Some may be saying a PC target can ignore it entirely because players have unlimited license to metagame, but that's not how I would approach the spell either as player or DM.

[JoeJ]

Yeah, but you also seem to say the pit trap can cause other effects amounting to conditions.

Yes, and as I stated above, I would allow the ogre to cause effects amounting to conditions. It could, for example, knock the target prone, or grapple the target. (A grappled target would not normally try to walk away without breaking the grapple first, although if it did try, it would succeed.)

[Segev]

I don't think there's anyone saying the target doesn't think the phantasm is real though? Some may be saying a PC target can ignore it entirely because players have unlimited license to metagame, but that's not how I would approach the spell either as player or DM.

It's not PCs I'm worried about, actually. You can prevent a PC from metagaming by not telling his player it's an illusion. If the DM says, "The wizard gestures, and an ogre appears behind you and grabs you!" or "Suddenly, the ground beneath your feet collapses and you fall into a pit onto some spikes!" few players, absent context that illusions are likely, will stop to ask, "Is this an illusion?" When told they take (*DM rolls*) 4 damage from the fall ("Man, you got lucky, there,"), they assume it's real until given a hint otherwise. The DM always is describing the scene and environs and the like.

The way PC behavior changes the moment the player becomes aware it's an illusion, however, is what I'm getting at, because the DM can't not know it's really an illusion. And thus he's always acting with the knowledge the player only has when told.

So if the mechanics of the spell are "1d6 psychic damage, and you're supposed to pretend it's real, except that anything you do opposing it works," then the spell really is just 1d6 psychic damage.

And the evidence is how people respond to any suggestion made in any of these threads as to what the spell might be used to do: they come up with reasons it won't actually work. Because the target just no-sells it by trying things that happen to reveal its falsehood (or at least which render it ineffectual).

[Aquillion]

And the evidence is how people respond to any suggestion made in any of these threads as to what the spell might be used to do: they come up with reasons it won't actually work. Because the target just no-sells it by trying things that happen to reveal its falsehood (or at least which render it ineffectual).I think there's a difference between the tortured readings people have attempted above, like "the illusion can't move out of a 10x10 space" (which would make it always useless), and the extent to which DMs have some freedom to mitigate and determine what happens.

When you cast Phantasmal Force, you're ultimately creating a really convincing illusion (that can do some damage.) The full impact of that illusion is intentionally in the hands of your DM. A good DM will reward creativity, read the room and accept things that the group clearly thinks should work, and try to keep the overall balance and fun of the game in mind when adjudicating edge-cases like that.

Let's consider the illusionary pit, say. (For simplicity's sake and to avoid having two debates at once, I'll assume the caster specified an immobile pit.) Lots of things can happen. Listing some various options:


The target believes themselves to have fallen into the pit, taking 1d6 damage. Since they did not actually fall, they don't go prone or anything like that, and justify it by assuming that they acrobatically landed on their feet or somesuch.
As above, but target falls prone, technically of their own volition (ie. they try to catch themselves as they "fall", and end up falling down in the real-non-illusionary-world as a result of their efforts.) This, in my view, would be the DM being a bit generous (perhaps because you described the spell well or they think it was especially creative), but is within the range of what they could do.
The target accepts that they're now in a pit, does not immediately try to escape, and only attempts actions that could be made within the pit (eg. casting spells, shooting, or throwing stuff towards people outside.) They don't suffer any actual penalties to these actions, even if being in a pit would normally inflict them, except maybe disadvantage for not being able to see things on the outside. (Some DMs might alternatively give them disadvantage for having their senses distorted, ie. if they think you're above them when you're not, their aim is going to be off.)
The target attempts to climb out of the pit, and the DM describes them uselessly making climbing motions at the edge of the illusion, justifying their failure as a simple failure to climb.
The target examines the pit to try and figure out how to escape. The DM decides to count this as an Investigation check, and the illusion is broken if they succeed.
The target attempts to leave the pit in a way that would actually move them out of the illusion's area - perhaps the DM decides that when they try to climb, they simply push through the edge of the illusion and find themselves outside; or they try to jump out, jumping out of the illusion in the process. They succeed, justifying it to themselves as having found an easily-climbable part of the side, or jumping particularly well, or whatever.


Any of these could be easily justified. Note that some of these can differ drastically in terms of how effective the illusion is. This isn't unique to Phantasmal Force - it's how illusions work in general.

(The pit that moves with them is more complex - they can't easily escape from it just via coincidental actions - but as I outlined above, the same principles apply. They could notice it's a magic pit that moves with them, and decide to use this to make people they want to attack "fall" in with them, which would "work" because the whole thing is an illusion and they're actually just walking up to people and attacking them.)

Basically, the player doesn't get to dictate how the target responds to the illusion, nor to they get to dictate what rationalizations the target makes or what actions are rationalized. They can encourage it - illusion magic is always about trying to sell your enemies (in-universe) and the DM (out-of-universe) on a particular story - but my assumption is that many of the more extreme tricks here wouldn't work reliably.

That's part of the reason why I think the spell's ability to block sight + hearing and constantly do damage for the duration is important. If you try to twist your interpretation of it to the point where targets can just walk away, it's mostly a much worse Silent Image.


Well, we seem to agree that the caster cannot say, "The phantasm is an ogre that knocks the target into what they are obliged to think is a helpless, pain-stricken stupor", yet you do think the caster can say, "The phantasm is a pit trap which traps the target in what they are obliged to think is a tight dark space out of reach from their actual surroundings", invoking external rules to claim a difference. This distinction is not entirely convincing to me. As long as we're not actually using specific resolution systems, dictating and narrating the one is really no more complex or unbelievable than the other.
The key point is that the caster cannot dictate the target's response to the illusion, only how the illusion looks.

You can describe the pit as looking utterly inescapable - as the Alcatraz of pit traps. You can go ridiculously far over the top if you want - you could have spiked bars slap down over the top of the pit after the target falls in. You can have the walls lined with steadily-descending quicksand. You can have the God of Pit Traps descend from the heavens and declare, in a booming voice, that this is the Ultimate Pit Trap from which nothing escapes.

But all of that is an illusion. The target is still actually standing where they were before - and while they accept the illusion as real, their reaction to it still depends on their personality and mindset. If they look at all of that, nod, and say "all right, I try and climb the walls anyway", the DM has the option of saying "while trying to climb the illusionary walls, they push through them, and justify this to themselves as being really awesome at escaping pit traps." Or they could say "alright, I search the pit trap for ways to escape anyway" and the DM could interpret this as an Investigation check. And the DM has the choice of whether to make them react that way or not, regardless of how you describe the trap.

Note that NPCs often don't have well-defined mindsets and backgrounds, and, in that case, the DM gets to fill in the blank based on whatever they feel is narratively satisfying. If you drop the villain's evil messenger in a pit trap just to screw with them, or drop some minions in there, the DM would probably say "yeah, sure, why not?" If you drop this on the genius evil strategist who has been established as never giving up and as determined to accomplish his vile plans no matter what, the DM is probably going to say he investigates or tries to escape through regardless, no matter how overbearing you make the illusion to convince him not to.

This is also a chance for DMs to reward players who pay attention to the personality and mindset NPCs - ie. if it's been established that someone gives up easily or fears pit traps or whatever, they're more likely to give in and not push back against their situation. If they worship the God of Pit Traps, or are religious in general, they're more likely to accept the fact that the God of Pit Traps told them they can't escape, and so on.

But it doesn't succeed automatically. It's an illusion to try and trick the target into behaving in a certain way; ultimately, the DM controls their reaction, not the caster.

(Also, do remember that they have to fail a save before any of this can happen to them at all. For comparison, Hold Person and Suggestion are also second-level spells, both of which can utterly ruin someone's day on a failed save. Heck, Hideous Laughter is first-level, and will often accomplish what people are trying to do here more easily. So even when the DM is maximally permissive, I don't think Phantasmal Force is as overpowered as some people imply. It's a situational save-or-suck that does a little damage, requires concentration, can be escaped or broken by the target's actions, and depends, to an extent, on DM adjudication if you try to get fancy. That's about what top-tier second level spells do.)

I should add that I would generally personally discourage DMs from going with "they completely bypass everything"; it's 100% their call, but that's rarely going to make people happy. But something like "the BBEG tries to toss some things out of the pit for a round or two, then gets frustrated and tries to climb, doing so in a way that gets them out" could work.

[Segev]

I should add that I would generally personally discourage DMs from going with "they completely bypass everything"; it's 100% their call, but that's rarely going to make people happy. But something like "the BBEG tries to toss some things out of the pit for a round or two, then gets frustrated and tries to climb, doing so in a way that gets them out" could work.

Overall, good points. Personally, I think it best if the DM assume that the victim's actions will not ever be of the sort that casually ignore the illusion's reality. This is why I keep referring to "pantomime." It's what he might look like to an outside observer. Attempting to climb out of the pit should never cause him to fall forward through the illusory wall; he's scrabbling against what feels like solid-enough dirt or stone, and any "leaning into" the wall he thinks he's doing is entirely in his head. Maybe he's not really all that great at pantomime, and in reality his arms are flailing through where the wall is perceived to be, but his own senses convince him that he's scraping against it without going through.

Note: I'm not suggesting that this be more than a largely cosmetic adjustment. The difference between reality and perception might be a half-foot or two of forward motion on his arms, not him thinking he's stayed put when he's moved five feet.

But he WON'T, under his own power, move those five feet through that pit wall. If he leans on it, he'll actually be standing, supporting his own weight, and just thinking he's leaning on it. It takes commitment to something where he cannot support himself to invoke the "rationalization" clause for "impossibilities." Climbing up that wall, he commits his weight to a foothold that isn't there in reality (because he's "climbing" thin air) and his foot falls with that "I thought there was one more step" jarring sensation. He rationalizes that as the wall collapsing under his weight, or his boot slipping out of the foothold, or something.

If he gets bull-rushed by a friend or enemy trying to knock him out of the illusion or the fight, he'll rationalize them entering his "pit" through the "wall" in some fashion, as well as how the tackle took him through the wall, somehow. Because there's no limit to the rationalization, "He jumped in and threw me out of it" might even be feasible in his own head.

The reason I ask for and push for this interpretation is precisely because just about any of the "the DM determines his attempt to climb out pushes him through the illusory wall, and he rationalizes it as having climbed out," utterly negates that saving throw failure. Hold person requires repeated saves, not just declaring "I decide to do something that frees me from it."

The psychic damage is his mind making it real. If his mind can make it so real that he takes actual damage from the perception of painful interactions with the illusion, then it really should be real enough to him that he convinces himself he's pulling on that chain, shaking those bars, or leaning on that wall much more strongly than he really is.

[MaxWilson]

Emphasis mine:


And the evidence is how people respond to any suggestion made in any of these threads as to what the spell might be used to do: they come up with reasons it won't actually work. Because the target just no-sells it by trying things that happen to reveal its falsehood (or at least which render it ineffectual).

Which people? It's quite irksome that you keep saying this despite ample evidence of people who are more than willing to let it work, although not in the crunchy way you want it to work. By this point you should know better.


*snip* Basically, the player doesn't get to dictate how the target responds to the illusion, nor to they get to dictate what rationalizations the target makes or what actions are rationalized. They can encourage it - illusion magic is always about trying to sell your enemies (in-universe) and the DM (out-of-universe) on a particular story - but my assumption is that many of the more extreme tricks here wouldn't work reliably. *snip*

Good post.

[Segev]

Emphasis mine:



It's quite irksome that you keep saying this despite ample evidence people who are more than willing to let it work, although not in the crunchy way you want it to work. By this point you should know better.
“Well, they’d just try this thing that has them automatically out of it in one round without even having to make a save or skill check,” is not “letting it work, just not in a crunchy way.”

[MaxWilson]

“Well, they’d just try this thing that has them automatically out of it in one round without even having to make a save or skill check,” is not “letting it work, just not in a crunchy way.”

Plenty of people here are willing to let Phantasmal Force be way more effective than this, especially if you choose a good illusion. In fact I don't think there's anyone on this thread who would make Phantasmal Force automatically do nothing useful no matter what illusion you use. When you say "people" here I suspect there are no people matching your description.

[JoeJ]

“Well, they’d just try this thing that has them automatically out of it in one round without even having to make a save or skill check,” is not “letting it work, just not in a crunchy way.”

Only once in this thread have I said that one of your ideas for this spell wouldn't work in my game, and I suggested a way to change it so that it would work.

[Segev]

Plenty of people here are willing to let Phantasmal Force be way more effective than this, especially if you choose a good illusion. In fact I don't think there's anyone on this thread who would make Phantasmal Force automatically do nothing useful no matter what illusion you use. When you say "people" here I suspect there are no people matching your description.Aquillon's own imminently reasonable post listed several of the ways "people" have said things would fail, most prominently the pit example where attempting to climb the walls causes the target of the spell to move forward through the illusory walls rather than scrabble at the air.


Only once in this thread have I said that one of your ideas for this spell wouldn't work in my game, and I suggested a way to change it so that it would work.

If I am being unfair, it is more in that I am pointing out that, for any particular illusion, there has been at least one person who's pointed out why he would interpret it to accomplish nothing. My point being that, at best, with no agreement as to what its limits actually are - which is what people are accusing me of wanting "crunchy" effects for - you're playing a guessing game with your DM. There's no consistency beyond what the DM deigns to allow to work today. This goes beyond the usual dependency on DM permissiveness, because it actively requires the DM to interpret in your favor, rather than merely to not twist the rules against you or outright rule to override them.

JoeJ, you may have made a suggestion on how to make that work; are you going to tell me, if I'm in your games, how to make every illusion I come up with work? Because if not, we're back to me guessing. If so, my creativity isn't as important as waiting for you to tell me what to do with it.

I'm not even sure how "the target will subconsciously restrain himself" is particularly crunchy compared to other ways people have interpreted it, beyond the fact that it gives a definite idea what can work, rather than hoping the DM decides to let it work this time.

[JoeJ]

JoeJ, you may have made a suggestion on how to make that work; are you going to tell me, if I'm in your games, how to make every illusion I come up with work? Because if not, we're back to me guessing. If so, my creativity isn't as important as waiting for you to tell me what to do with it.

Most of your illusions won't need my suggestions, but yeah. Your character has studied and practiced that spell during downtime and knows it far better than you, the player, ever will. I would definitely work with you so that you can use it to do something cool. Spending your action and a spell slot on something that has no chance of working isn't fun for anybody.

(In fact, referencing the other PF thread, I would even double check that you really want to use a spell with an Intelligence save against a beholder.)

[Yunru]

It's not PCs I'm worried about, actually. You can prevent a PC from metagaming by not telling his player it's an illusion. If the DM says, "The wizard gestures, and an ogre appears behind you and grabs you!" or "Suddenly, the ground beneath your feet collapses and you fall into a pit onto some spikes!" few players, absent context that illusions are likely, will stop to ask, "Is this an illusion?" When told they take (*DM rolls*) 4 damage from the fall ("Man, you got lucky, there,"), they assume it's real until given a hint otherwise. The DM always is describing the scene and environs and the like.
The problem with this is, is that you've also got to explain to the other players that they don't see it.

[Segev]

The problem with this is, is that you've also got to explain to the other players that they don't see it.

Depending on the situation, that's easily handled by asking them to roll perception if they ask to do something regarding it, and telling them they don't see anything regardless of their roll. Explain it by distance, hecktic conditions, or don't explain it at all. IF they absolutely would see it, then you can ask for that roll and pass them a note explaining what they do see.

It CAN reach a point of metagaming on the players' part, but it is a lot easier than for the DM, who can't help but know.

[JoeJ]

The problem with this is, is that you've also got to explain to the other players that they don't see it.

The other players have their own situation to worry about. If a PC does something to try and help the person who was targeted, or even if the player says that they're looking over at them to see what's going on, then they'll see that character flailing at the air (or whatever). If the player ignores the targeted character and concentrates their attention on their own part of the battle, their character does so as well.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that a single target illusion spell is less powerful when used on one member of a group of intelligent beings that can talk to each other.

[Coffee_Dragon]

For comparison, Hold Person and Suggestion are also second-level spells, both of which can utterly ruin someone's day on a failed save.

When I was a kid, those were both 3rd-level spells. :smalltongue:


My point being that, at best, with no agreement as to what its limits actually are - which is what people are accusing me of wanting "crunchy" effects for - you're playing a guessing game with your DM. There's no consistency beyond what the DM deigns to allow to work today. This goes beyond the usual dependency on DM permissiveness, because it actively requires the DM to interpret in your favor, rather than merely to not twist the rules against you or outright rule to override them.

I kinda feel you are tangling up two different things here, table communication and power levels. The spell can be a top-tier single-target debuff, or it can be a situationally good debuff with added utility. The DM can engage in guessing games, or they can explain how they view the spell's function, assume that casters know their own spells, and negotiate its effects as needed. If a player is frustrated because for whichever reason they expect power or utility out of a spell they're not getting, then amping up the spell until their expectations are met is a trivial solution to that isolated problem, but it doesn't follow that it's the only one, or necessarily the best one.

[MaxWilson]

When I was a kid, those were both 3rd-level spells. :smalltongue:

When I was a kid, Hold Person was a 2nd level spell for priests and a 3rd level spell for wizards. :)

===============================


(In fact, referencing the other PF thread, I would even double check that you really want to use a spell with an Intelligence save against a beholder.)

Eh, +8 Int/Cha save, +7 Wis save, not much difference. A Dex save is obviously better (+2) but a 40%ish chance of landing Phantasmal Force isn't bad (9th level wizard with Int 18 = DC 16 = 35% success rate), if you choose an illusion that will have a big impact if it works. You'd have a 65% chance of getting it to fail a save against Fireball instead, but that doesn't matter because 28 points of Fireball damage are not decisive the way the right illusion could be.

But I'll give you this much: it is true that obviously the best spells to use against beholders are ones that create heavy obscurement or invisibility, not Phantasmal Force. Darkness, Fog Cloud, etc. and even Stinking Cloud/Sleet Storm (in a pinch) completely nullify its ability to harm the party with its eye rays, while you are all within the heavy obscurement. But if Phantasmal Force is what you've got memorized, and Darkness isn't, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have."

[JoeJ]

Eh, +8 Int/Cha save, +7 Wis save, not much difference. A Dex save is obviously better (+2) but a 40%ish chance of landing Phantasmal Force isn't bad (9th level wizard with Int 18 = DC 16 = 35% success rate), if you choose an illusion that will have a big impact if it works. You'd have a 65% chance of getting it to fail a save against Fireball instead, but that doesn't matter because 28 points of Fireball damage are not decisive the way the right illusion could be.

But I'll give you this much: it is true that obviously the best spells to use against beholders are ones that create heavy obscurement or invisibility, not Phantasmal Force. Darkness, Fog Cloud, etc. and even Stinking Cloud/Sleet Storm (in a pinch) completely nullify its ability to harm the party with its eye rays, while you are all within the heavy obscurement. But if Phantasmal Force is what you've got memorized, and Darkness isn't, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have."

Blindness/Deafness is a Constitution save IIRC, and also shuts down eye rays. If you have it available, it's definitely the better choice.

[Chronos]

And when I was a kid, Phantasmal Force was a first-level spell that got renamed as Silent Image.

[MaxWilson]

Blindness/Deafness is a Constitution save IIRC, and also shuts down eye rays. If you have it available, it's definitely the better choice.

Yep, though not as good as Darkness or Fog Cloud, which have no save. And Blindness does allow a fresh save every round. But yes, if you've got both Blindness and Phantasmal Force and nothing else that's applicable, Blindness could be a better choice, especially if you have enough party damage output to kill the beholder in about one round.

[JoeJ]

When I was a kid, Hold Person was a 2nd level spell for priests and a 3rd level spell for wizards. :)

When I was a kid, "wizards" were called "magic users," and Phantasmal Forces was plural.

[MaxWilson]

When I was a kid, "wizards" were called "magic users," and Phantasmal Forces was plural.

Boy, you've really old. :)

[JoeJ]

Boy, you've really old. :)

Get the he** off my lawn, ya damn kids!

[guachi]

That would be an attempt to climb it, implying you believe it is real
Resulting in an interaction with and allowing an Investigation check

Investigation check
Succeed: the walls become translucent and you step forward, free of the spell
Fail: the walls are too slick, you're in the pit. Try again

I vote for this because it's exactly how I'd run it and how I'd expect it to be run if I were a player.