Phantasmal force ruling

[Blackflight]

There are a couple of spells in DnD 5e that is very much a DM call. I´ve seen multiple discussions on what is a fair use of spells like minor illusion and suggestion. But what about phantasmal force? It is one of the very few spells that require an intelligence saving throw which makes it especially strong versus low intelligence enemies, but what is "fair" in regards to the effect of the illusion you create?

How would you rule the following scenarios? And do you have other suggestions for illusions?

- The target catches on fire: Is the target distracted somehow? Penalty to attack rolls, AC or concentration?
- The target sees a big bad enemy creature or frightening entity: Will the target attempt to attack that target instead of other creatures? Or maybe run away from it as if it was affected by a fear spell?
- The target thinks its getting choked by an iron ring around its neck: Will the creature spend its action trying to remove it? Can the creature actually suffocate and die?
- The creature hears a loud dissonant sound: Is the creature deafened while affected?
- The creature is engulfed in shadows: Is the creature blinded while affected?

[Pex]

Anything intended to harm the target causes 1d6 psychic damage as per the spell. In my opinion the safest way to use the spell so the DM has it work the way you intended is whatever you do don't have the phantasm physically touch the target, accepting a creature attacking it. If it means you can't think of anything to cause 1d6 psychic damage it's a price worth paying since the spell is better used as a means of control than damage - take the target out of the fight for awhile. Don't constrain it with shackles. Instead surround it with a cage or walls of stone or plants with thorns sharp enough to cause the 1d6 psychic damage upon touching. A target touching the phantasm is investigating - the intelligence check as its action. However, then you get into the realm of how the DM handles all illusions.

The DM knows you cast an illusion spell but that doesn't mean the NPCs know. If you were to cast a normal Wall of Fire or Wall of Stone NPCs should react the same way if you used Major Image to "cast" them. If every bad guy reacts to suspect you cast an illusion the DM is metagaming, and you need to talk with him about it. The DM is correct in not wanting players using illusions to Win D&D but his response to it should not mean players Lose D&D.

[Callak_Remier]

Their are several limitations with Phantasmal force.


Phantasmal force does not impose any conditions on the target. So choose something that could cause inaction from the target.

Remember that the illusion cannot move from its square, and nothing prevents the target from fleeing.
So if you place something on the target,(such as manacles, collar) you break your own illusion once the creature gets a turn and moves.
.

[Chronos]

The target should behave in the same way they would if the image were real, because the target thinks it is. If, when confronted with a real stone wall, you wouldn't try to charge headlong into it, then you shouldn't do that with a phantasmal force of a wall, either. And it doesn't matter if your illusion doesn't entirely make sense of it, because the spell explicitly states that the target will explain it away, anyway.

The biggest limitation is that, in a D&D world, the way the target explains it away will often be "magic". If you wave your arms and chant a bit, and suddenly a monster appears next to someone, they're likely to think that you summoned a real monster. But if they're smart and a bit knowledgeable about magic, the most logical response to that is to try to hit you really hard to break your concentration on the summoning spell. Which, coincidentally, also happens to be a good response when what you actually did was cast Phantasmal Force.

[Gignere]

Their are several limitations with Phantasmal force.


Phantasmal force does not impose any conditions on the target. So choose something that could cause inaction from the target.

Remember that the illusion cannot move from its square, and nothing prevents the target from fleeing.
So if you place something on the target,(such as manacles, collar) you break your own illusion once the creature gets a turn and moves.
.

This is very limiting to phantasmal force. The description clearly states that the target believes the illusion if they fail the save. So they believe they are in manacles. Nothing in the spell said that interacting with it auto disbelieves in fact it specifically said if they spend an action to interact with it they get an investigation check to disbelieve it.

So why are you adding unnecessary rulings to make it a lot worse of a spell. When the spell pretty much spells out how it can be defeated already.

[JackPhoenix]

This is very limiting to phantasmal force. The description clearly states that the target believes the illusion if they fail the save. So they believe they are in manacles. Nothing in the spell said that interacting with it auto disbelieves in fact it specifically said if they spend an action to interact with it they get an investigation check to disbelieve it.

So why are you adding unnecessary rulings to make it a lot worse of a spell. When the spell pretty much spells out how it can be defeated already.

And if they find out they can move, despite being manacled, they'll rationalize it in some way, like the manacles breaking, or not being locked properly and they slipped out of them. They can see them, they can touch them, they can feel their weight, but the manacles can't actually restrain them, because they are not there.

[Coffee_Dragon]

- The target catches on fire: Is the target distracted somehow? Penalty to attack rolls, AC or concentration?
- The target thinks its getting choked by an iron ring around its neck: Will the creature spend its action trying to remove it? Can the creature actually suffocate and die?

It's not very clear from the spell description if the phantasm can be unconditionally attached to the target, or even if the phantasm can seem to move at all. The description seems to assume throughout it's just a static external hazard the target may or may not end up interacting with.

It might be useful to consider the spell being used against a PC. If as a player you were told your character suddenly is choked by a ring, would you spend several actions fruitlessly trying to get rid of it because it just sounds like a reasonable thing to do? If so, is that a fair payoff for a 2nd-level spell?


- The target sees a big bad enemy creature or frightening entity: Will the target attempt to attack that target instead of other creatures? Or maybe run away from it as if it was affected by a fear spell?

It's completely up to the DM a) whether a phantasm can be tailored to appear as a specific entity, and b) what any given NPC target will do in response. A fairly normal use of the spell should be to bring in a fake ally that will soak up some attacks. Arguably the spell has a lot of utility built into it already with a conservative reading.


- The creature hears a loud dissonant sound: Is the creature deafened while affected?
- The creature is engulfed in shadows: Is the creature blinded while affected?

No and no. The phantasm imposes no conditions and there is no actual illusion to impede normal vision. The target is aware of obvious sights and sounds and rationalizes inconsistencies as per the spell description.

[Gignere]

And if they find out they can move, despite being manacled, they'll rationalize it in some way, like the manacles breaking, or not being locked properly and they slipped out of them. They can see them, they can touch them, they can feel their weight, but the manacles can't actually restrain them, because they are not there.

Why would they move to begin if they believe it? An example in the text even shows that they believe in it so much they wouldn’t try anything to go against the phantasm unless they make the check. Just them trying to move is already the investigation check. This is just you trying to change a spell to make it useless. Just follow the RAW and the spell is fine. I do make one little change, I allow phantasmal force to duplicate any 1st or 2nd level conditions. So this way it won’t be outside of the power of a 2nd level spell. So restrain, blind, prone is fair game. However paralyze, incapacitated is not, unless I guess they somehow make an illusion that induces the target to sleep.

[Lunali]

Why would they move to begin if they believe it? An example in the text even shows that they believe in it so much they wouldn’t try anything to go against the phantasm unless they make the check. Just them trying to move is already the investigation check. This is just you trying to change a spell to make it useless. Just follow the RAW and the spell is fine. I do make one little change, I allow phantasmal force to duplicate any 1st or 2nd level conditions. So this way it won’t be outside of the power of a 2nd level spell. So restrain, blind, prone is fair game. However paralyze, incapacitated is not, unless I guess they somehow make an illusion that induces the target to sleep.

The first thing most people would do if they suddenly found themselves in manacles in combat would be to try to pull themselves free. If they instead found themselves in a cage of thorns, they might investigate, but they won't try to move directly through them.

[Gignere]

The first thing most people would do if they suddenly found themselves in manacles in combat would be to try to pull themselves free. If they instead found themselves in a cage of thorns, they might investigate, but they won't try to move directly through them.

Yes and they get an investigation check if they make it they break free. If they fail they think they are restrained.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes and they get an investigation check if they make it they break free. If they fail they think they are restrained.

No, if they try to move, they'll move, as there's nothing to stop them from moving, and rationalize "impossible" results afterwards. If the character moves on phantasmal bridge, he won't be hovering in the air, Wiley E. Coyote-style until they pass the check and notice there's no bridge. He'll fall immediately, and rationalize the reasons for the fall afterwards, exactly as the spell's description says. That won't be enough for Investigation check, that'll happen if the victim later examines the bridge in order to avoid further fall (or the manacles to see why they got free).

[Gignere]

No, if they try to move, they'll move, as there's nothing to stop them from moving, and rationalize "impossible" results afterwards. If the character moves on phantasmal bridge, he won't be hovering in the air, Wiley E. Coyote-style until they pass the check and notice there's no bridge. He'll fall immediately, and rationalize the reasons for the fall afterwards, exactly as the spell's description says. That won't be enough for Investigation check, that'll happen if the victim later examines the bridge in order to avoid further fall (or the manacles to see why they got free).

The intent of a bridge is for you to walk on it. So believing that there is a bridge there and walking on it is logical, sure you fall off and you rationalize it and if you fail the investigation check you’ll try to walk over it again and again.

Manacles are designed to stop you from moving, if you believe it you wouldn’t think moving would be the first option to take. At least not before you try and take them off first. Especially if you just add a chain to the floor and make them believe they are manacled to the floor.

I just see the conditions as psychosomatic, your belief is strong enough to affect you physically. That’s how the conditions of blindness, restraint, prone all comes to play.

[JackPhoenix]

The intent of a bridge is for you to walk on it. So believing that there is a bridge there and walking on it is logical, sure you fall off and you rationalize it and if you fail the investigation check you’ll try to walk over it again and again.

The spell doesn't turn you into an idiot. If you fell of the bridge, and rationalize it as a hole in the bridge, you won't have a reason to try to walk on the same, clearly unsafe, bridge again. Sure, if you rationalize it as extremely slippery, or a gust of wind blowing you off the bridge, you may, depending how confident you feel about your ability to not fall again and how much you need to get to the other side. But If I'm extra careful and fall *again* anyway, I'm not gonna keep trying, I'm not an idiot. The bridge is only 10' long at most, I can jump that unless I've dumped Str.


Manacles are designed to stop you from moving, if you believe it you wouldn’t think moving would be the first option to take. At least not before you try and take them off first. Especially if you just add a chain to the floor and make them believe they are manacled to the floor.

By the same logic, the bridge is designed to stop you from falling into whatever is bellow it. Even though manacles are designed to restrain you, testing the strength of those restraints *is* the first option most people would take. As such test reveal that the target can actually move freely, that freedom will be rationalized in some way... the manacles broke, weren't locked, or they offer enough space to not restrict the movement, whatever.


I just see the conditions as psychosomatic, your belief is strong enough to affect you physically. That’s how the conditions of blindness, restraint, prone all comes to play.

Except the spell doesn't say anything like that, it doesn't cause any condition and can't affect the target physically in any way. *You* are adding unnecessary houserules that change what the spell can do.

You know a funny thing? Imagine two creatures, one immune to fire and one immune to psychic damage, facing the same PF of being in a patch of flames. The fire immune creature would take no damage, it wouldn't consider the flames harmful, even though PF does psychic damage. It would still percieve those flames, but won't care. The psychic damage immune creature ALSO wouldn't take any damage, however, it would be in much weirder situation: while it would know the flames should burn it, it can't recieve any damage due to its psychic immunity. It would have to rationalize the explanation why the flames don't hurt.

[Segev]

The trouble with phantasmal forces of walls, manacles, barred cages, etc. is the question of what happens when the victim - who has failed the Investigation check - attempts the usual "let me out!" banging, yanking, or shaking of the material he believes contains him.

If the wall is real, he can hammer on it but probably won't break it down.

If the manacles are real, he can walk to the extent of them, and yank futilely to try to get free.

If the bars of the cage are real, he can grip them and shake them and nothing will happen.

If the bridge is real, he can walk across it.


Now, in the first three examples, with it being illusory, one of two things can happen:

He can bang on the wall, and his mind makes it real enough that he stops his own hand, as if in pantomime, while feeling and hearing the wall thump appropriately...or he can have his hand go straight through it because nothing's there, and rationalize that he must've broken it with his strength/that it was a weak wall.

He can walk to the extent of the manacles, and yank, but, like a mime, his belief that they're real causes him to FEEL a jerk to a stop, when he really stops himself...or he can jerk once and the manacles don't stop him because they're not there, and he believes he broke them or slipped out or something.

He can grip the bars like a mime, and either he'll struggle and shake but his belief in their reality keeps him from moving his hands...or he moves his hands trivially and believes they bent or broke or he ripped the whole barred structure out of the opening.

The last example, the bridge, he has no component of his own volition in whether the bridge supports him. He commits his weight, and the non-existent bridge drops him, and he rationalizes it. But can he put a foot on it to "test" it, first, and have it seem sturdy enough? His mind making him hold his own foot there, as long as his body can manage that stunt? Or even stomp the ground under the bridge, before it extends over the chasm, and believe he's stomping a bit higher than he is and hearing a bridge-like thump rather than a ground-like tap?

This is where it's very much a DM call. I tend to rule that "your mind makes it real" is in effect, and you act like a mime. If DCs are needed for faux checks, I might use the spell's Investigation DC. So the rogue picking the fake manacles' lock needs the same DC he would need with Investigation to see through it; he didn't see through it if he succeeded, but he thinks he unlocked them. The strongman breaking the chains would have the same DC to overcome. etc.

[MrStabby]

The feedback about touch as well as how your limbs are positioned are both senses. Something that overruled your senses can then simply provide the sensory feedback that when you touched the illusory wall your hand simultaneously stopped moving and had the sense of touch.

I think in a similar way the wall can stop vision. How can you completely believe your head is in a metal bucket and at the same time be seeing what is happening beyond? If you genuinely believe a bucket is on your head obscuring the view then any visial information recived from beyond should be dismissed as an illusion.

Is this fair from a level 2 spell? Is it fair to limit actions in this way? Well hold person is the same level and renders you equally inactive but also makes attacks against you critical hits and can scale with spell level more effectively. Force needing an action and a successful check to end is certainly nice, but I think that the most appropriate power level is to allow it to do what it says in the description and have the target genuinely believe the illusion of whatever the spell created.

[Gignere]

The feedback about touch as well as how your limbs are positioned are both senses. Something that overruled your senses can then simply provide the sensory feedback that when you touched the illusory wall your hand simultaneously stopped moving and had the sense of touch.

I think in a similar way the wall can stop vision. How can you completely believe your head is in a metal bucket and at the same time be seeing what is happening beyond? If you genuinely believe a bucket is on your head obscuring the view then any visial information recived from beyond should be dismissed as an illusion.

Is this fair from a level 2 spell? Is it fair to limit actions in this way? Well hold person is the same level and renders you equally inactive but also makes attacks against you critical hits and can scale with spell level more effectively. Force needing an action and a successful check to end is certainly nice, but I think that the most appropriate power level is to allow it to do what it says in the description and have the target genuinely believe the illusion of whatever the spell created.

Yes it’s why I houseruled that phantasmal force can duplicate any other level 1 and 2 spells conditions, of course the player need to provide an appropriate illusion to create the proper conditions. Like red hot chains for restrained or getting swallowed by a dragon, blindness, etc.

I tried to benchmark it so it won’t just do 1d6 damage over time for a second level spell, which would make it the most useless 2nd level spell.

[Misterwhisper]

My problem with the spell is the example they give in the description of the spell it can’t even make.

Phantasmic force can not make an illusion of a bridge because it can’t make something that big.

You could make a bridge that is already there seem like it was whole if it had a convenient sized set of planks missing.

The spell does exactly what it says, stop trying to powergame my adding conditions not in the spell

[Coffee_Dragon]

My problem with the spell is the example they give in the description of the spell it can’t even make.

Phantasmic force can not make an illusion of a bridge because it can’t make something that big.

Well, it spans anything that's two squares wide as represented on a grid. Can maybe be fudged to reach a bit further if the grid's not relevant.

[Pex]

My problem with the spell is the example they give in the description of the spell it can’t even make.

Phantasmic force can not make an illusion of a bridge because it can’t make something that big.

You could make a bridge that is already there seem like it was whole if it had a convenient sized set of planks missing.

The spell does exactly what it says, stop trying to powergame my adding conditions not in the spell

At the same time DMs shouldn't weaken it to uselessness due to whatever the player thinks of not working because it's rationalized away.

[Segev]

The spell does exactly what it says, stop trying to powergame my adding conditions not in the spell

The problem is the lack of clarity on what it says it does actually means under certain situations.

Does it make you think you hammered on the stone wall you don't know to be illusory, or does your hand go straight through it? Unclear; the example for when it forces rationalization doesn't have the possibility of the character's belief stopping the motion.

[Misterwhisper]

The problem is the lack of clarity on what it says it does actually means under certain situations.

Does it make you think you hammered on the stone wall you don't know to be illusory, or does your hand go straight through it? Unclear; the example for when it forces rationalization doesn't have the possibility of the character's belief stopping the motion.

My issue is when people do things like:

“I make an illusion of armor on the caster so he can’t cast any spells.”

“I make an illusion of huge constrictor snake and they restrain when they construct so he is restrained”

“I make an illusion of a bag on the giant’s head, he should have disadvantage on attacks now.”

Which will all just lead to a huge argument.

The spell is horribly written and should have had errata years ago.

[Segev]

My issue is when people do things like:

“I make an illusion of armor on the caster so he can’t cast any spells.”

“I make an illusion of huge constrictor snake and they restrain when they construct so he is restrained”

“I make an illusion of a bag on the giant’s head, he should have disadvantage on attacks now.”

Which will all just lead to a huge argument.

The spell is horribly written and should have had errata years ago.

Unfortunately, "the DM just makes a ruling" is their expectation, here, so they don't see a need for errata.

[Pex]

Unfortunately, "the DM just makes a ruling" is their expectation, here, so they don't see a need for errata.

https://i.postimg.cc/Z5hvFkPN/umnevermind.gif

[AdAstra]

I kinda like that suggestion earlier, of having the illusion work like a real object, but being able to be broken out of with a check appropriate to the hazard, with the DC being your spell save DC. So if you PF a bag over their head, an raw Str or Sleight of Hand check could rip or remove the bag. If they fail, the illusion makes them believe they failed (ie the mime way), while if they succeed, they unconsciously break free of the illusion, believing they have must have removed the hazard successfully.

Things like fire or a vicious beast might require more unique means, like Con or Dex checks, or even Create Water (trying to endure/dodge/put out the fire), or attack rolls (to kill the creature).

[Segev]

I kinda like that suggestion earlier, of having the illusion work like a real object, but being able to be broken out of with a check appropriate to the hazard, with the DC being your spell save DC. So if you PF a bag over their head, an raw Str or Sleight of Hand check could rip or remove the bag. If they fail, the illusion makes them believe they failed (ie the mime way), while if they succeed, they unconsciously break free of the illusion, believing they have must have removed the hazard successfully.

Things like fire or a vicious beast might require more unique means, like Con or Dex checks, or even Create Water (trying to endure/dodge/put out the fire), or attack rolls (to kill the creature).

The strength of this is that it gives a quick way to let players and monsters interact with the illusion they think is real. The weakness is that it can accidentally let a creature use its best abilities in place of the investigation check to effectively negate the spell.

For any illusion of something able to take proactive action, however, that weakness is limited by the fact that the illusion won’t passively stop bothering them just because they’ve escaped its immediate grasp.

[NNescio]

Anything intended to harm the target causes 1d6 psychic damage as per the spell. In my opinion the safest way to use the spell so the DM has it work the way you intended is whatever you do don't have the phantasm physically touch the target, accepting a creature attacking it. If it means you can't think of anything to cause 1d6 psychic damage it's a price worth paying since the spell is better used as a means of control than damage - take the target out of the fight for awhile. Don't constrain it with shackles. Instead surround it with a cage or walls of stone or plants with thorns sharp enough to cause the 1d6 psychic damage upon touching. A target touching the phantasm is investigating - the intelligence check as its action. However, then you get into the realm of how the DM handles all illusions.

The DM knows you cast an illusion spell but that doesn't mean the NPCs know. If you were to cast a normal Wall of Fire or Wall of Stone NPCs should react the same way if you used Major Image to "cast" them. If every bad guy reacts to suspect you cast an illusion the DM is metagaming, and you need to talk with him about it. The DM is correct in not wanting players using illusions to Win D&D but his response to it should not mean players Lose D&D.

Touching doesn't automatically give an investigation check. The spell also doesn't have a "physical interaction" clause, unlike the Image line and Minor Illusion. The phantasm can provide (apparent) tactile feedback, if applicable.

(It wouldn't actually physically restrain the creature though. It can try breaking out of the phantasmal restraints, with its apparent success or failure [or complete nonaction ala elephant conditioned to be tied with a thin rope] being left up the DM's adjudication, but even if it breaks out it will rationalize it away [as per the spell description] instead of automatically seeing through the illusion.)

Creatures need to deliberately use their action to examine ("investigate") the phantasm to qualify for the check.

Though yes, it's best to describe the phantasm in such a manner that it can potentially cause ('apparent') damage on contact, so as to dissuade creatures from trying to break out at all.

[Segev]

Creatures need to deliberately use their action to examine ("investigate") the phantasm to qualify for the check.


Another trick a DM with intimate knowledge of his players' character stats could do is, when the players try to do something that could result in "breaking out," ask them to roll an appropriate check...and then mentally adjust what is SAID to be rolled to match what the PC's Intelligence(Investigation) would be. So if they're trying, say, Strength(Athletics) to rip manacles off of an illusory stake embedded in the ground, and they roll a 10 but add 8 for an 18, the DM might still tell them they failed to break the chains because he knows that the character's Intelligence(Investigation) is actually only +1, and that 11 doesn't beat the spell's DC.

This is a stronger version in a lot of cases than my other suggestion (where the 18 would beat the DC 14 of the spell's Investigation check, allowing them to convince themsleves they'd broken the chains even if it doesn't let them see through the illusion), because it keeps them using what is likely not their best Ability(Skill). It also means that, if they do succeed on the hidden Intelligence(Investigation) check, they see through the illusion when they try their action of choice. And that a high-Int character with no Str could still use his "let me break out!" Athletics check and be really rolling a strong Ability. But meh, if he's resorting to that, he's desperate; it's more likely he'd call for the Int(Inv) check himself if he suspected, or that he'd try something less futile if he didn't but wasn't giving up.

[FilthyLucre]

There are a couple of spells in DnD 5e that is very much a DM call. I´ve seen multiple discussions on what is a fair use of spells like minor illusion and suggestion. But what about phantasmal force? It is one of the very few spells that require an intelligence saving throw which makes it especially strong versus low intelligence enemies, but what is "fair" in regards to the effect of the illusion you create?

How would you rule the following scenarios? And do you have other suggestions for illusions?

- The target catches on fire: Is the target distracted somehow? Penalty to attack rolls, AC or concentration?
- The target sees a big bad enemy creature or frightening entity: Will the target attempt to attack that target instead of other creatures? Or maybe run away from it as if it was affected by a fear spell?
- The target thinks its getting choked by an iron ring around its neck: Will the creature spend its action trying to remove it? Can the creature actually suffocate and die?
- The creature hears a loud dissonant sound: Is the creature deafened while affected?
- The creature is engulfed in shadows: Is the creature blinded while affected?

I feel like some over thinking is going on here. Let me give you an example of something that happened in a game I was DMing:

PCs confronted by a medium sized white dragon. Wizard PC casts Phantasmal Force to create the illusion of an adamantium cage surrounding the dragon, (using the maximum size the spell can produce, a 10' x 10' cube). The dragon, seeing it is in a cage, attempts to smash his way out. However, since it's not a real cage he uses his intelligence saving throw instead of his strength score. He spends the next few rounds failing his intelligence save as he is peppered with arrows from a safe distance. The dragon does not try to just run to the PCs, because in it's mind that is not possible - it's in a cage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Meanwhile on the dragon forum:

"phantasmal forcecage is op plz nerf"

[micahaphone]

I feel like some over thinking is going on here. Let me give you an example of something that happened in a game I was DMing:

PCs confronted by a medium sized white dragon. Wizard PC casts Phantasmal Force to create the illusion of an adamantium cage surrounding the dragon, (using the maximum size the spell can produce, a 10' x 10' cube). The dragon, seeing it is in a cage, attempts to smash his way out. However, since it's not a real cage he uses his intelligence saving throw instead of his strength score. He spends the next few rounds failing his intelligence save as he is peppered with arrows from a safe distance. The dragon does not try to just run to the PCs, because in it's mind that is not possible - it's in a cage.


This is a good ruling - I see Phantasmal Force as close to Suggestion (not to open up a different can of worms).

It's got a shorter duration and you don't get to set the parameters, you just give the target something to respond to. In exchange, it could do damage, and it's an int save w/ subsequent int checks to get out, and doing damage doesn't force new checks.

[Segev]

Meanwhile on the dragon forum:

"phantasmal forcecage is op plz nerf"

The real trouble with illusions cast by players is that the arbiter of the reaction of the targets knows it's an illusion, which starts his brain thinking about how to get around the illusion, rather than how to get around what the illusion is of. I find that even DMs I trust to have the best of intentions and to be really good at DMing have difficulty with this.

[Sir_Solifuge]

Personally, I feel like the issue that arises more often than not is that the DM controlled NPC isn't played as truly believing the Phantasm is real until they have cause to not. I normally see it be played as the spell is cast, and the NPC immediately attempts to find out if it's real.

Any illusionary magic should be considered real until proven not real, as opposed to the opposite.

This spell should only be limited by the receiver's (NPC or PC character) own abilities, not by any player or DM's imagination.

[Segev]

Personally, I feel like the issue that arises more often than not is that the DM controlled NPC isn't played as truly believing the Phantasm is real until they have cause to not. I normally see it be played as the spell is cast, and the NPC immediately attempts to find out if it's real.

Any illusionary magic should be considered real until proven not real, as opposed to the opposite.

This spell should only be limited by the receiver's (NPC or PC character) own abilities, not by any player or DM's imagination.

Agreed. My point was that even DMs who are otherwise quite good and skilled start treating them that way. Which suggests to me that there is something psychologically inhibitory about knowing it's an illusion that makes it so that you immediately have trouble judging how you'd react if it weren't an illusion.

You can tell yourself that your character believes the dragon is real all you want, but you KNOW it's an illusion, so now you have to second- and third-guess yourself every time you have your character act: Would you really be trying that if you thought it was real? If your action will interact with it, are you just trying to "prove" it's fake? It's surprisingly hard to just act like the creature you control doesn't know it's an illusion.

[Contrast]

I feel like some over thinking is going on here. Let me give you an example of something that happened in a game I was DMing:

PCs confronted by a medium sized white dragon. Wizard PC casts Phantasmal Force to create the illusion of an adamantium cage surrounding the dragon, (using the maximum size the spell can produce, a 10' x 10' cube). The dragon, seeing it is in a cage, attempts to smash his way out. However, since it's not a real cage he uses his intelligence saving throw instead of his strength score. He spends the next few rounds failing his intelligence save as he is peppered with arrows from a safe distance. The dragon does not try to just run to the PCs, because in it's mind that is not possible - it's in a cage.

Can you use Phasmal Force to create an image of a bridge that someone will attempt to walk across? Yes indeed, in fact its an example in the spell.

Would someone trying to walk across that bridge (in any circumstance) be able to use the bridge to physically support themselves (regardless of if they pass or fail any investigation check - for reference please note like many illusion based spells its an investigation check not an intelligence saving throw)? Nope - they'd pass right through because it isn't there. They would however rationalise their belief that they fell through where there should have been a bridge.

So with that in mind we create a cage and a creature tries to bust out of that cage. If any of their attempts at breaking out of the cage involve trying to force themselves against the bars they will find zero resistance and pass through to the other side but rationalise it (hmm, there must have been a door I didn't notice/maybe its magic, it did just suddenly appear after all/etc) and proceed on their merry way. Phantasmal Force of a cage is a great way to keep someone who relies on lock picking to escape such things in one place but a terrible way to keep someone who is immediately gonna slam themselves against the bars in one place.

You have to be pretty careful about saying someone is unable to interact in a way they think contravenes the illusion as the logical conclusion is that you should incase them in a 10 ft cube of solid adamantium (either heated or cooled depending which damage type you think they think would hurt more) which with your ruling would mean they would then be paralyzed, blinded, deafeaned and potentially suffocating.

By far the best way to use Phantasmal Force is the player and the DM have a quick chat and both agree a general scope and then the player creates a description with that outcome in mind.

It is difficult though - my DM has been fine with me describing my bard pulling a handcerchief from his pocked that he enchants and which floats over to the target, wrapping around their eyes and slowly tightening (and proving oddly resilient to being removed as fingers pass through an illusory knot) or an iron maiden style mask flying out of my bag of holding to wrap around their face. I think he would have been substantially less ok if I had just said 'their head is now encased in a block of iron like the last 12 people I've cast this spell on'.

[Segev]

So with that in mind we create a cage and a creature tries to bust out of that cage. If any of their attempts at breaking out of the cage involve trying to force themselves against the bars they will find zero resistance and pass through to the other side but rationalise it (hmm, there must have been a door I didn't notice/maybe its magic, it did just suddenly appear after all/etc) and proceed on their merry way. Phantasmal Force of a cage is a great way to keep someone who relies on lock picking to escape such things in one place but a terrible way to keep someone who is immediately gonna slam themselves against the bars in one place.

This is actually the sticking point. You've outlined one school of thought. Unfortunately for illusionists, that school of thought makes phantasmal force basically a weak damage spell that might, if you're lucky, absorb some attacks, because they only useful illusions are monsters and other proactive creatures.

The other school of thought is that "your mind makes it real." You create a creature and that creature tries to bust out of that cage. Its attempts involve trying to bash open the bars by shoulder-checking them. There's no actual resistance, there, but the illusion has them so expecting resistance that they stop themselves, the way somebody who isn't committed to a punch (perhaps they were never told to "punch through" the target) starts pulling back to stop more or less at the point of impact. The illusion has tactile as well as visual components, so they actually feel like they hit those bars, and, because they think they're going all-out, they think they hit them hard. They might even take 1d6 bludgeoningpsychic damage in the process.

This second school of thought says that, as long as there's voluntary action involved in completing the "impossible" feat, the target who hasn't successfully seen through the illusion unconsciously sabotages himself and fails. It's only when something out of his control happens that would have been impossible if the illusion was real that he has to rationalize it. The example of the bridge is good for this because falling through it is not something he can keep himself from doing by muscle control when he's placed his weight on the foot in thin air.

Kicking the bridge, testing it with one foot, etc., he'd find it seemed as sturdy as the illusionist wanted it to. But when he actually takes a step that can't be supported, when he actually has to rest his weight on it (rather than being able to keep his weight on his back foot, even subconciously), the illusory nature of the bridge means he falls, because he has no power there.

Likewise, the guy stuck in a cage only he can perceive could be grabbed by one of his allies and pulled or pushed out. He would rationalize either the cage as being damaged, or some door being opened, or something suitable to how his ally got him out of the cage (which the ally couldn't even see).

[Contrast]

This is actually the sticking point. You've outlined one school of thought. Unfortunately for illusionists, that school of thought makes phantasmal force basically a weak damage spell that might, if you're lucky, absorb some attacks, because they only useful illusions are monsters and other proactive creatures.

I mean depending how your DM rules, spell is still pretty powerful. As I said, my DM is perfectly fine with me creating blindfolds that cannot be removed turning the spell into an a strictly superior Blindness/Deafness (I get rider damage and they're making an investigation check instead of a con save after the initial which is even for relatively intelligent monsters, usually worse, and much better for things like magic resistance or legendary resistances - on top of the spell remaining useful for potential utility stuff).

As I said your other interpretations seem to have the potential to turn the spell into a more powerful verison of Hold Person so...

[Segev]

I mean depending how your DM rules, spell is still pretty powerful. As I said, my DM is perfectly fine with me creating blindfolds that cannot be removed turning the spell into an a strictly superior Blindness/Deafness (I get rider damage and they're making an investigation check instead of a con save after the initial which is even for relatively intelligent monsters, usually worse, and much better for things like magic resistance or legendary resistances - on top of the spell remaining useful for potential utility stuff).

As I said your other interpretations seem to have the potential to turn the spell into a more powerful verison of Hold Person so...

More "immobilize person," since it would be really hard to full-body-bind. Not impossible, admittedly. Unlike hold person, just about any mechanism you chose could be helped out of by an ally, though, because the ally wouldn't be constrained and nothing in my interpretation requires the victim to actively HELP keep himself locked up; just fight any of his OWN efforts to leave, like a mime.

[Contrast]

More "immobilize person," since it would be really hard to full-body-bind. Not impossible, admittedly. Unlike hold person, just about any mechanism you chose could be helped out of by an ally, though, because the ally wouldn't be constrained and nothing in my interpretation requires the victim to actively HELP keep himself locked up; just fight any of his OWN efforts to leave, like a mime.

Except they could call for help or explain what was wrong because their mouth is 'held shut' by the force of the illusion in this interpretation. So while theoretically your ally dragging you 10ft to the right would resolve the problem unless you have a prearranged system of 'if I suddenly stop moving in combat, immediately run over, grapple me and drag me 10ft over to the side' that doesn't really help any.

In the mean time you would be held immobile for any enemy to walk up and glib you for insta-crits.

If the DM uses the actual pazalyzed condition they also wouldn't actually get to use their action to try and investigate and snap out. The problem for me is if your answer is that getting frozen in illusory carbonite doesn't impose the paralyzed condition but the person just behaves exactly as if they were paralyzed in all respects but without any mechanical implications I begin to question if the line of logic we're on works from a versimiltude or game balance perspective.

To clarify my stance a little more - as I implied earlier my preferred solution is for player and DM to just agree a power level for the spell ahead of time and player aims to describe something in that ballpark without overstretching. That way you can have your cages with physicality without it devovling into 10ft cubes of stone.

[AdAstra]

I think the most powerful use of the spell might actually be to have the target's allies appear to be attacking them. This would either force them away from the fight or get them to start attacking said allies, wasting their turns and harming other enemies.

I'm really hesitant to give much leeway with PF because the more generous interpretations would make it pretty unreasonably powerful and versatile. I would try to allow at most one effect other than damage, such as forced movement, blindness, or lack of movement. Otherwise it's the best control spell at its level by a wide margin.

[Sorinth]

This is actually the sticking point. You've outlined one school of thought. Unfortunately for illusionists, that school of thought makes phantasmal force basically a weak damage spell that might, if you're lucky, absorb some attacks, because they only useful illusions are monsters and other proactive creatures.

The other school of thought is that "your mind makes it real." You create a creature and that creature tries to bust out of that cage. Its attempts involve trying to bash open the bars by shoulder-checking them. There's no actual resistance, there, but the illusion has them so expecting resistance that they stop themselves, the way somebody who isn't committed to a punch (perhaps they were never told to "punch through" the target) starts pulling back to stop more or less at the point of impact. The illusion has tactile as well as visual components, so they actually feel like they hit those bars, and, because they think they're going all-out, they think they hit them hard. They might even take 1d6 bludgeoningpsychic damage in the process.

This second school of thought says that, as long as there's voluntary action involved in completing the "impossible" feat, the target who hasn't successfully seen through the illusion unconsciously sabotages himself and fails. It's only when something out of his control happens that would have been impossible if the illusion was real that he has to rationalize it. The example of the bridge is good for this because falling through it is not something he can keep himself from doing by muscle control when he's placed his weight on the foot in thin air.

Kicking the bridge, testing it with one foot, etc., he'd find it seemed as sturdy as the illusionist wanted it to. But when he actually takes a step that can't be supported, when he actually has to rest his weight on it (rather than being able to keep his weight on his back foot, even subconciously), the illusory nature of the bridge means he falls, because he has no power there.

Likewise, the guy stuck in a cage only he can perceive could be grabbed by one of his allies and pulled or pushed out. He would rationalize either the cage as being damaged, or some door being opened, or something suitable to how his ally got him out of the cage (which the ally couldn't even see).

It's pretty clear that with Phantasmal Force the intent is that it makes it real in your mind. That's why you take damage, your mind has made it real, and that's why you have to make an investigation check instead of auto-succeeding it like you would with minor illusion.

In the bridge scenario, let's say you character is paranoid and wants to investigate it. How does he go about it? He's going to test it with his foot to see if it's solid. That's his Investigation check is, if he fails the check it's because he stopped himself subconcsiously and believes it is solid. Compare that to minor illusion where your mind doesn't make it real, in that case physical interaction automatically reveals it to be an illusion, why because without your mind making it real the investigation check is an auto-sucesss so you don't have to even roll.

So yes creating an illuison that's a physical restraint like a manacle/cage would keep someone locked in place, however any interaction such as trying to pick the locks on the manacles, or trying to squeeze through the bars would grant an investigation check. Failure means the person is stopped, success means they see through the illusion. Now since it's an illusion if you physically can't stop yourself then you pass through it and then rationalize it. So for the bridge you think someone pushed you off, if in the cage you took a running start and shoulder checked the bars, you'd pass through and rationalize it as breaking through the bars.

If the illusions is heated chains wrapped around you, then you take the 1d6 damage, and are restrained, but since you will be struggling against the chains you are going to make an investigation check every round.

For the create a block on the targets head they are blinded and taking damage. But they also wouldn't know that there is a block on their head, which means that they don't know that movement should be restricted and therefore they aren't restrained.

So generally speaking you are basically doing 1d6 damage a round, and either adding a rider like restrained or blinded, or wasting an attack/turn. Like all other save or suck spells there will pretty much be an check every round to negate regardless of whether you are intentionally trying to disbelieve the illusion or not, and depending on how they decide to interact it might auto-succeed.

[FilthyLucre]

It's pretty clear that with Phantasmal Force the intent is that it makes it real in your mind. That's why you take damage, your mind has made it real, and that's why you have to make an investigation check instead of auto-succeeding it like you would with minor illusion.

In the bridge scenario, let's say you character is paranoid and wants to investigate it. How does he go about it? He's going to test it with his foot to see if it's solid. That's his Investigation check is, if he fails the check it's because he stopped himself subconcsiously and believes it is solid. Compare that to minor illusion where your mind doesn't make it real, in that case physical interaction automatically reveals it to be an illusion, why because without your mind making it real the investigation check is an auto-sucesss so you don't have to even roll.

So yes creating an illuison that's a physical restraint like a manacle/cage would keep someone locked in place, however any interaction such as trying to pick the locks on the manacles, or trying to squeeze through the bars would grant an investigation check. Failure means the person is stopped, success means they see through the illusion. Now since it's an illusion if you physically can't stop yourself then you pass through it and then rationalize it. So for the bridge you think someone pushed you off, if in the cage you took a running start and shoulder checked the bars, you'd pass through and rationalize it as breaking through the bars.

If the illusions is heated chains wrapped around you, then you take the 1d6 damage, and are restrained, but since you will be struggling against the chains you are going to make an investigation check every round.

For the create a block on the targets head they are blinded and taking damage. But they also wouldn't know that there is a block on their head, which means that they don't know that movement should be restricted and therefore they aren't restrained.

So generally speaking you are basically doing 1d6 damage a round, and either adding a rider like restrained or blinded, or wasting an attack/turn. Like all other save or suck spells there will pretty much be an check every round to negate regardless of whether you are intentionally trying to disbelieve the illusion or not, and depending on how they decide to interact it might auto-succeed.

Agreed. In my case, the dragon attempts to break open the cage, fails his intelligence save, so even though his hand goes through the cage it rationalizes that it did not. So he remains immobile.

[Nagog]

As stated, it's typically 1d6 psychic damage. If you're choking/drowning the enemy with the Force (reference intended), dealing 1d6 damage/round is probably better than trying to keep the spell up and active for the amount of time required to suffocate them (Keep in mind a creature can hold it's breath for a number of minutes equal to it's Con. 1 minute is 10d6 damage, which is much preferable to faking them out and having them suffocate for that long). If it's something else, I'd have that enemy be debuffed similarly.

[AdAstra]

I’m starting to find the idea of Phantasmal Force being able to make people “mime” a little less believable when thinking about it. If your mind makes you feel direct impulse from the phantasm, then you could create a phantasm of iron bands squeezing the breath out of the foe. If the foe believes it’s real in such a way that their diaphragm can “give out”, they’ll breathe out, meaning they skip right over the Holding Breath rules (1+con minutes), straight to the Suffocation rules (Con ROUNDS) in the Environment section of the PHB. Or you could try to “force” them off a cliff with say, a phantasm of a moving metal box with an open bottom. Which interestingly enough, might provoke opportunity attacks since while the target believes they are being forced to move, they are strictly speaking using their own movement to “be moved” by the box.

Basically, there should clearly be SOME sort of limit to what Phantasmal Force can make you “feel”.

[MrStabby]

I’m starting to find the idea of Phantasmal Force being able to make people “mime” a little less believable when thinking about it. If your mind makes you feel direct impulse from the phantasm, then you could create a phantasm of iron bands squeezing the breath out of the foe. If the foe believes it’s real in such a way that their diaphragm can “give out”, they’ll breathe out, meaning they skip right over the Holding Breath rules (1+con minutes), straight to the Suffocation rules (Con ROUNDS) in the Environment section of the PHB. Or you could try to “force” them off a cliff with say, a phantasm of a moving metal box with an open bottom. Which interestingly enough, might provoke opportunity attacks since while the target believes they are being forced to move, they are strictly speaking using their own movement to “be moved” by the box.

Basically, there should clearly be SOME sort of limit to what Phantasmal Force can make you “feel”.

I think there are two sides - what it can make you feel and what it can make you believe. I would say the holding the breath wouldn't work, nor would casting it on a friend to make them believe that they can walk across a non-existent bridge. It can impact your choices but not things that are involuntary like breathing,a heart-beat or falling. Manacles on the other hand are fine: you feel your arms are not moving, even if they are. You can try and break them but that is just your investigation check prescribed by the spell. You can put an poison cloud around someone so they can't see, but it won't add the poisoned condition.

[Segev]

I’m starting to find the idea of Phantasmal Force being able to make people “mime” a little less believable when thinking about it. If your mind makes you feel direct impulse from the phantasm, then you could create a phantasm of iron bands squeezing the breath out of the foe. If the foe believes it’s real in such a way that their diaphragm can “give out”, they’ll breathe out, meaning they skip right over the Holding Breath rules (1+con minutes), straight to the Suffocation rules (Con ROUNDS) in the Environment section of the PHB. Or you could try to “force” them off a cliff with say, a phantasm of a moving metal box with an open bottom. Which interestingly enough, might provoke opportunity attacks since while the target believes they are being forced to move, they are strictly speaking using their own movement to “be moved” by the box.

Basically, there should clearly be SOME sort of limit to what Phantasmal Force can make you “feel”.

It takes conscious effort to hold your breath, and they'd have to actively hold it not to breathe back in. So they'll feel the iron bands constricting around them, sure, and it hurts (1d6 psychic damage each round!), but they'll rationalize away why they can still breathe.

Note that all the examples I'm using about "miming" involve voluntary action. At the very least, it takes voluntary action to put yourself in a position where the involuntary motion takes over, and part of the illusion's effect on your mind prevents you from doing so. It doesn't work with "walking across an illusory bridge" because stopping you from resting your weight on it keeps you from performing other voluntary parts of the action that the illusion leads you to believe you can perform. Hurling yourself at an illusory wall, you stop yourself unconsciously because you don't believe you really can get through it. Stomping on an illusory bridge to test its solidity, you stop your foot (or imagine that stomping on the ground beneath it if it starts above one side of the gorge is stomping on the bridge as you expect), because you don't expect to be able to put your foot through it.

Walking across it, however, you'll initially stop your foot, unconsciously, from going through it (or believe you're walking on the bridge when you're really walking on the slope going down away from it), but as soon as you slip due to the slope, or you put your foot where there's no air, and you're not supporting your weight with your back foot, then you fall, and rationalize it somehow. But you're not prevented from doing something the illusion makes you believe you can do: walking across that bridge.

[Contrast]

Note that all the examples I'm using about "miming" involve voluntary action. At the very least, it takes voluntary action to put yourself in a position where the involuntary motion takes over, and part of the illusion's effect on your mind prevents you from doing so. It doesn't work with "walking across an illusory bridge" because stopping you from resting your weight on it keeps you from performing other voluntary parts of the action that the illusion leads you to believe you can perform. Hurling yourself at an illusory wall, you stop yourself unconsciously because you don't believe you really can get through it. Stomping on an illusory bridge to test its solidity, you stop your foot (or imagine that stomping on the ground beneath it if it starts above one side of the gorge is stomping on the bridge as you expect), because you don't expect to be able to put your foot through it.

Lets say for a moment instead of being entirely illusory there was a sheet of paper that was enchanted to display an illusion of whatever the creator wanted.

Someone hangs this sheet of paper across a corridor and creates the illusion of a gate. A barbarian comes along, fails his investigation check, wants to get through the gate and shoulder charges it.

Would you say be saying that he bounces off the sheet of paper because he unconsciously holds his own muscles back?

[Gignere]

Lets say for a moment instead of being entirely illusory there was a sheet of paper that was enchanted to display an illusion of whatever the creator wanted.

Someone hangs this sheet of paper across a corridor and creates the illusion of a gate. A barbarian comes along, fails his investigation check, wants to get through the gate and shoulder charges it.

Would you say be saying that he bounces off the sheet of paper because he unconsciously holds his own muscles back?

Depends have said barbarian ever charged through a gate or have he/she failed every strength check every time he/she tried on real ones. If it is the latter or at least he/she has failed a few times I would rule as DM he/she is stopped for phantasmal force.

However if said barbarian for whatever reason bursts down gates like nothing because he/she just made all the checks in the past, he or she will bust down the gate like it wasn’t there.

[Contrast]

Depends have said barbarian ever charged through a gate or have he/she failed every strength check every time he/she tried on real ones. If it is the latter or at least he/she has failed a few times I would rule as DM he/she is stopped for phantasmal force.

However if said barbarian for whatever reason bursts down gates like nothing because he/she just made all the checks in the past, he or she will bust down the gate like it wasn’t there.

So you would honestly determine if a charging barbarian bounced off a sheet of paper by judging how confident the barbarian was they could get through whatever image the paper was displaying?

...I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree as that seems the height of nonsense to me. :smalltongue: I'm pretty sure if I shoulder charged what I thought was a very clean toughened glass door that turned out to be an empty opening with a door handle hanging by very thin wire I would sprawl through the opening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-V8P63-aps) rather than bouncing off the imaginary door.

[Coffee_Dragon]

First, I don't really buy the "with perfect control your body starts an elaborate mime to make you act consistently with your belief without you noticing" theory, not just because there's nothing in the spell description to suggest it, but because the presentation relies on a reversal of causality. If you push on a real barrier, you feel a counterforce because you apply a force. The mime theory suggests the spell supplies a phantasmal sensation of counterforce and therefore the body pre-emptively stops and never applies any force (which would see it passing through the barrier). This is all just too convoluted to assume.

Second, I note that several posters are giving out free investigation checks for "interacting" with the phantasm. The spell description is pretty clear that you have to spend an action on the dedicated investigative option. Just acting in a way consistent with believing the phantasm is real - attacking a phantasmal goblin, trying to break free of phantasmal chains (assuming here that's a valid phantasm) - would not do it. So that seems to be an indirect acknowledgment that this kind of functionality needs to be checked.

[Evaar]

So let's say there's a flying dragon and I use Phantasmal Force to create the illusion of a razor wire slipknot around its neck with a weight affixed to the cord and dangling 10 feet below. So it can land to support the weight and stop constricting the wire around its neck, thereby no longer taking the 1d6 psychic damage, but if it tries to grab the weight with its arms it rationalizes that it can't reach and/or it keeps slipping away. (And attempting to do this would use its action, per the effect of the spell.)

So the effect of the illusion is to convince this dragon to land or else risk having its throat fatally cut eventually.

Does anyone see any rules-based problems with that use of the spell? I'm not asking if there's counter-play, but rather whether anyone would rule "That doesn't work because..."

[redwizard007]

It's a second level spell. Compare it to other 2nd level spells. Its awfully tempting to say you can make the target stop its self from escaping, but that is what Hold Person does and it allows a save every round with no damage rider. So no, probably shouldn't subconsciously prevent someone from succeeding at an escape attempt. That would be a genuinely better spell than hold person AND would have incredible flexibility for other uses. Traditionally, that flexibility on top of utility and damage means a higher level spell.

How about we compare to 3rd level spells for a moment. Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud... not even close if you allow the target to escape the effect when they try to do so (i.e. strict ruling.) Now if you make the target's subconscious your new puppet then we are in the right ballpark (i.e. permissive ruling.) Really, having the target auto-fail at any attempt to avoid the phantasm makes this an automatic full duration Hold Person with a 10d6 rider as long as you maintain concentration. What caster wouldn't take that spell at 3rd level?

In conclusion, with the more liberal reading it would be OP as a 3rd level spell, as a 2nd it would be broken in the style of 3.5 edition casters. With the strict ruling it makes sense as a second level spell.


So let's say there's a flying dragon and I use Phantasmal Force to create the illusion of a razor wire slipknot around its neck with a weight affixed to the cord and dangling 10 feet below. So it can land to support the weight and stop constricting the wire around its neck, thereby no longer taking the 1d6 psychic damage, but if it tries to grab the weight with its arms it rationalizes that it can't reach and/or it keeps slipping away. (And attempting to do this would use its action, per the effect of the spell.)

So the effect of the illusion is to convince this dragon to land or else risk having its throat fatally cut eventually.

Does anyone see any rules-based problems with that use of the spell? I'm not asking if there's counter-play, but rather whether anyone would rule "That doesn't work because..."

Would the dragon landing not take it out of the 10x10' aoe?

[Crgaston]

So you would honestly determine if a charging barbarian bounced off a sheet of paper by judging how confident the barbarian was they could get through whatever image the paper was displaying?

...I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree as that seems the height of nonsense to me. :smalltongue: I'm pretty sure if I shoulder charged what I thought was a very clean toughened glass door that turned out to be an empty opening with a door handle hanging by very thin wire I would sprawl through the opening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-V8P63-aps) rather than bouncing off the imaginary door.

Hilarious video... I guess the 1d6 Psychic damage comes from embarrassment? :)
What you're describing feels more like Minor Illusion to me. Even then, 6" red-hot steel spikes covering the door would certainly diminish the likelihood of someone trying to burst through.


It's a second level spell. Compare it to other 2nd level spells. Its awfully tempting to say you can make the target stop its self from escaping, but that is what Hold Person does and it allows a save every round with no damage rider. So no, probably shouldn't subconsciously prevent someone from succeeding at an escape attempt. That would be a genuinely better spell than hold person AND would have incredible flexibility for other uses. Traditionally, that flexibility on top of utility and damage means a higher level spell.

How about we compare to 3rd level spells for a moment. Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud... not even close if you allow the target to escape the effect when they try to do so (i.e. strict ruling.) Now if you make the target's subconscious your new puppet then we are in the right ballpark (i.e. permissive ruling.) Really, having the target auto-fail at any attempt to avoid the phantasm makes this an automatic full duration Hold Person with a 10d6 rider as long as you maintain concentration. What caster wouldn't take that spell at 3rd level?

In conclusion, with the more liberal reading it would be OP as a 3rd level spell, as a 2nd it would be broken in the style of 3.5 edition casters. With the strict ruling it makes sense as a second level spell.

I think you're underselling Hold Person here. HP applies the Paralyzed condition, which means all attacks vs the target get Advantage, and hits made from within 5' are auto-crits. Also the target auto-fails Str/Dex saves. This is significantly more powerful than allowing a Restrained or Grappled -type effect, especially if you just count either one as Grappled, i.e. no Advantage on attacks made against them, no Disadvantage on their attack rolls or Dex saves. They can still attack if they chose. Maybe they rationalize it as their sword arm slipping free?

I feel like it's entirely reasonable to let someone take their action to try to break out of a PF effect and just make it an Int save.

I also feel like a swarm of insects is one of the best uses of PF.

[MrStabby]

Also I think hold person is better than you give it credit for because it scales well. If you need to hit two, three or four enemies it is pretty brutal.

Phantasmal force may also be restricted if you rule that true sight limits it's effects.

[Segev]

Lets say for a moment instead of being entirely illusory there was a sheet of paper that was enchanted to display an illusion of whatever the creator wanted.

Someone hangs this sheet of paper across a corridor and creates the illusion of a gate. A barbarian comes along, fails his investigation check, wants to get through the gate and shoulder charges it.

Would you say be saying that he bounces off the sheet of paper because he unconsciously holds his own muscles back?

My argument would be that the Barbarian would believe he was throwing himself at it in a no-momentum-spared shoulder-check, but in practice is already preparing to be stopped by it, and, even if he overshoots it a bit, he'll feel like he didn't, and pull back as part of his "bounce" off of it. He'll believe he bounced off of it, possibly hard enough to take 1d6 bludgeoningpsychic damage.

I'd also allow him a d20 roll, and ideally tell him to give me the value of his Strength(Athletics) check when I'm really secretly mentally adjusting it to be his Intelligence(Investigation) check. If I am not so well-prepared as to be able to do that math accurately (probably due to not having a copy of his sheet in front of me), I might be generous and just compare his actual Strength(Athletics) check against the Investigation DC. If he succeeds, he breaks through the barrier, rationalizing it as, well, breaking through the barrier.

[Contrast]

What you're describing feels more like Minor Illusion to me. Even then, 6" red-hot steel spikes covering the door would certainly diminish the likelihood of someone trying to burst through.

Oh yeah a large part of making PF effective is knowing what sort of thing will be effective on the person you're targetting. As I said upthread a simple cage would be rubbish against a barbarian who is going to throw himself against the bars and pass right through them but great against a rogue who is going to sit there trying to pick an illusory lock.


I think you're underselling Hold Person here. HP applies the Paralyzed condition, which means all attacks vs the target get Advantage, and hits made from within 5' are auto-crits. Also the target auto-fails Str/Dex saves. This is significantly more powerful than allowing a Restrained or Grappled -type effect, especially if you just count either one as Grappled, i.e. no Advantage on attacks made against them, no Disadvantage on their attack rolls or Dex saves. They can still attack if they chose. Maybe they rationalize it as their sword arm slipping free?

As mentioned upthread - if you're ruling they find the illusion physically tangible and it can restrict their movement, encase them in a 10ft cube of red hot solid adamantium with a hole in it precisely their size down to the mm. They can't move a muscle, see or speak. Sounds paralyzed to me. And hey that means they can't spend an action to try and break free either!

Either agree up front the expected scope of the spell or don't allow illusions that physically restrict.


I feel like it's entirely reasonable to let someone take their action to try to break out of a PF effect and just make it an Int save.

Agreed (though note its an investigation check not an Int save after the initial cast).




My argument would be that the Barbarian would believe he was throwing himself at it in a no-momentum-spared shoulder-check, but in practice is already preparing to be stopped by it, and, even if he overshoots it a bit, he'll feel like he didn't, and pull back as part of his "bounce" off of it. He'll believe he bounced off of it, possibly hard enough to take 1d6 bludgeoningpsychic damage.

I'd also allow him a d20 roll, and ideally tell him to give me the value of his Strength(Athletics) check when I'm really secretly mentally adjusting it to be his Intelligence(Investigation) check. If I am not so well-prepared as to be able to do that math accurately (probably due to not having a copy of his sheet in front of me), I might be generous and just compare his actual Strength(Athletics) check against the Investigation DC. If he succeeds, he breaks through the barrier, rationalizing it as, well, breaking through the barrier.

I'm not disputing your body will unconsciously prep you for an impact but hard disagree that would be enough to stop you if you applied force to something that just wasn't there. As I said to Gignere, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The idea of a DM rolling investigation for a player to forcefully run through what turned out to be a piece of paper (or, indeed, nothing in the case of PF) just boggles my mind.

[Arzanyos]

I really don't buy the idea that any attempt to break out of the Phantasmal Force is an Investigation check. You have to specifically spend an action to check whether the phantasm is real or not to make the check. If you try and flex your way out of the manacles, for instance, that's not checking whether the manacles are real or not. That's a strength check, which you'll auto-pass because the manacles aren't real. That manacles will still exist in your mind, they just won't be on you.

[Segev]

I'm not disputing your body will unconsciously prep you for an impact but hard disagree that would be enough to stop you if you applied force to something that just wasn't there. As I said to Gignere, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The idea of a DM rolling investigation for a player to forcefully run through what turned out to be a piece of paper (or, indeed, nothing in the case of PF) just boggles my mind.It doesn't have to stop you dead. It just has to stop you ENOUGH that the "bounce" you think you had off the object (because the tactile sensation is there) covers the fact that you actually went past it before bouncing back.

Phantasmal force is in your head, after all.

The trouble with anything short of this is that it becomes a pointless spell. Just about anything you can try will get you away from it, and by the logic applied to passing through it, you "rationalize" that you cut the illusory creature in half if you swing at it, because clearly your sword passed through it.

For it to have dodged is no more odd than you not actually having crashed through the barrier, or having failed to pull away the chain holding you to the wall.

Stopping "at" the illusory wall is akin to people who don't know to punch "through" their target.


I really don't buy the idea that any attempt to break out of the Phantasmal Force is an Investigation check. You have to specifically spend an action to check whether the phantasm is real or not to make the check. If you try and flex your way out of the manacles, for instance, that's not checking whether the manacles are real or not. That's a strength check, which you'll auto-pass because the manacles aren't real. That manacles will still exist in your mind, they just won't be on you.
It doesn't have to be. But I'm inclined to give it on the grounds that you're doing something that stretches the boundaries of the spell if you're doing something which would let you just walk away trivially if you didn't believe the illusion was there.

[AdAstra]

Then what about the steel-box-over-a-cliff example? If PF can create resistance in the mind, then it should logically be able to produce force as well (since resistance is basically just counterforce). And since they’re blinded by the box, attacks against them have advantage. So they’re provoking opportunity attacks at advantage, unable to do much on their turn (what with believing they’re in a metal box and all. You might even be able to force them to take the dash action to “keep up” with the moving box, preventing investigation checks), and possibly being moved into real hazards, like a cliff or lava or a pile of snakes.

[Contrast]

The trouble with anything short of this is that it becomes a pointless spell.

It's really not, its just terrible at keeping people bound in place.

Pass Without Trace is also terrible at keeping people bound in one place but is still an awesome spell. My opinion is that you're just trying to use the spell for something its bad at, not that the spell is bad.


Just about anything you can try will get you away from it, and by the logic applied to passing through it, you "rationalize" that you cut the illusory creature in half if you swing at it, because clearly your sword passed through it.

You're misinterpreting my argument. They may well convince themselves there was resistence - but they'll convince themselves that from the other side of the 'door' they just fell through which obviously isn't very helpful if your intent was to keep them stuck on the other side of the 'door'. If they imagined fighting someone they'll rationalise why their opponent is still standing (which is fine because the illusion is still there and relevant to their decisions in future turns) but the illusion is never going to be able to beat them in an arm wrestle.

Creating a cage with the spell can be a terrible idea because its an illusion which is potentially beaten by treating it as if it was real. So...don't do that? If someone looks like the kind of person who will throw themselves against a cage, don't use the spell to summon a cage around them. Create something which will not be resolved by them treating it as if it was real.

[GeistInMachine]

IMO, Phantasmal Force is much more of a spell to Deceive an enemy to make suboptimal actions, rather than trying to impact an enemy directly.

If you make an illusion of a skeleton archer, maybe the enemy goes to fight the skeleton because they think that's the tactically sound thing to do.

If you make a wall or floor of spikes, an enemy tries to go around the hazard, because they think it would hurt.

But if you put the enemy in a situation where they are 100% guaranteed to be hurt, if it wasn't an illusion, then the enemy has no choices, it may as well try its best to attack you, the caster, directly, and it rationalizes why the illusion isn't actually stopping it

The best phantasmal force will be one where the enemy thinks it has agency, then makes a bad choice based off the illusory information you provide it.

In this way, its similar to most illusions. The benefit of phantasmal force is its sticky and self perpetuates. The downside is only one creature sees an illusion, you can't make a lot of enemies see a bridge like something such as illusory terrain. That seems like an interesting tradeoff of its niche for me

[AdAstra]

IMO, Phantasmal Force is much more of a spell to Deceive an enemy to make suboptimal actions, rather than trying to impact an enemy directly.

If you make an illusion of a skeleton archer, maybe the enemy goes to fight the skeleton because they think that's the tactically sound thing to do.

If you make a wall or floor of spikes, an enemy tries to go around the hazard, because they think it would hurt.

But if you put the enemy in a situation where they are 100% guaranteed to be hurt, if it wasn't an illusion, then the enemy has no choices, it may as well try its best to attack you, the caster, directly, and it rationalizes why the illusion isn't actually stopping it

The best phantasmal force will be one where the enemy thinks it has agency, then makes a bad choice based off the illusory information you provide it.

In this way, its similar to most illusions. The benefit of phantasmal force is its sticky and self perpetuates. The downside is only one creature sees an illusion, you can't make a lot of enemies see a bridge like something such as illusory terrain. That seems like an interesting tradeoff of its niche for me

I agree that this is how the spell SHOULD work, and I think having the illusion not be able to directly resist or move the target is a good way of achieving this.

[Gignere]

I agree that this is how the spell SHOULD work, and I think having the illusion not be able to directly resist or move the target is a good way of achieving this.

This actually forces the agency out of the player’s hand and forces them to play PF your only doesn’t boggle your mind way. I allow PF to do this but I also allow it to duplicate any conditions that 1st and 2nd level spells can inflict if the player comes up with a creative illusion.

It’s a single target disable that allows a check each round. Which doesn’t make it anymore or less powerful than other second level spells.

Look at blindness that’s a no concentrate disable or web that’s an AoE disable. Are people seriously saying that allowing PF to restrain/blind one target with a d6 rider is OP as a second level spell?

About rationalization I have seen and heard horror stories of players summoning a monstrosity with PF but the DM just said it’s only doing a d6 damage so the NPC knows it should focus on the PCs instead.

At least if you allow a disable you return the agency back to the players and the dice rolls.

[micahaphone]

What if I create the illusion of several goblins popping out of the ground, grabbing at an orc/enemy and biting its ankles? D6 is apropriate damage for them, believable, would they believe the gobbos will be grappling them in place?

[Sorinth]

I really don't buy the idea that any attempt to break out of the Phantasmal Force is an Investigation check. You have to specifically spend an action to check whether the phantasm is real or not to make the check. If you try and flex your way out of the manacles, for instance, that's not checking whether the manacles are real or not. That's a strength check, which you'll auto-pass because the manacles aren't real. That manacles will still exist in your mind, they just won't be on you.

Out of curiosity how exactly would you investigate whether the manacles are real?

If you thought something was an illusion then you would probably try to intereact physically with it which is exactly trying to break out of manacles with a strength check is doing.

[redwizard007]

This actually forces the agency out of the player’s hand and forces them to play PF your only doesn’t boggle your mind way. I allow PF to do this but I also allow it to duplicate any conditions that 1st and 2nd level spells can inflict if the player comes up with a creative illusion.

It’s a single target disable that allows a check each round. Which doesn’t make it anymore or less powerful than other second level spells.

Look at blindness that’s a no concentrate disable or web that’s an AoE disable. Are people seriously saying that allowing PF to restrain/blind one target with a d6 rider is OP as a second level spell?

About rationalization I have seen and heard horror stories of players summoning a monstrosity with PF but the DM just said it’s only doing a d6 damage so the NPC knows it should focus on the PCs instead.

At least if you allow a disable you return the agency back to the players and the dice rolls.

I see the appeal of "let it do what other level 2 spells can do," but that isn't how D&D works. You dont get to pick a single spell at each level and use it to duplicate every other spell of that level. If you did, why would anyone ever do otherwise? Shoot, even Wish only duplicates spells of 8th level or lower.

[Sorinth]

Then what about the steel-box-over-a-cliff example? If PF can create resistance in the mind, then it should logically be able to produce force as well (since resistance is basically just counterforce). And since they’re blinded by the box, attacks against them have advantage. So they’re provoking opportunity attacks at advantage, unable to do much on their turn (what with believing they’re in a metal box and all. You might even be able to force them to take the dash action to “keep up” with the moving box, preventing investigation checks), and possibly being moved into real hazards, like a cliff or lava or a pile of snakes.

Yes PF can produce a force, whether that force is enough to actually move someone is less clear. The force is limited to 1d6 worth of damage, so is 1d6 points of damage enough to push someone? If they aren't expecting to get pushed then sure it could push them, if they were bracing themselves then I doubt it would be strong enough feeling to make them believe they couldn't resist it. It's similar to making a pool of lave with PF, it can make temperature changes but it's not going to make it feel as hot as real lava.

Also PF is limited to a 10ft area, so no you couldn't force them to take the Dash action.

[Sorinth]

IMO, Phantasmal Force is much more of a spell to Deceive an enemy to make suboptimal actions, rather than trying to impact an enemy directly.

If you make an illusion of a skeleton archer, maybe the enemy goes to fight the skeleton because they think that's the tactically sound thing to do.

If you make a wall or floor of spikes, an enemy tries to go around the hazard, because they think it would hurt.

But if you put the enemy in a situation where they are 100% guaranteed to be hurt, if it wasn't an illusion, then the enemy has no choices, it may as well try its best to attack you, the caster, directly, and it rationalizes why the illusion isn't actually stopping it

The best phantasmal force will be one where the enemy thinks it has agency, then makes a bad choice based off the illusory information you provide it.

In this way, its similar to most illusions. The benefit of phantasmal force is its sticky and self perpetuates. The downside is only one creature sees an illusion, you can't make a lot of enemies see a bridge like something such as illusory terrain. That seems like an interesting tradeoff of its niche for me


If a wizard summoned a skeletal archer that shot me for 1d6 damage, there's no way I would go and attack the skeleton. I would beeline to the wizard regardless of whether the skeleton was real or an illusion.

Also summoning an archer is basically useless since they can't shoot anything beyond the 10ft area of PF.

[Sorinth]

I see the appeal of "let it do what other level 2 spells can do," but that isn't how D&D works. You dont get to pick a single spell at each level and use it to duplicate every other spell of that level. If you did, why would anyone ever do otherwise? Shoot, even Wish only duplicates spells of 8th level or lower.

It's not anywhere close to copy any other 2nd level spell though.

If you tried to copy the Web spell, rather then stopping multiple enemies you are at best stopping one person, and the area of effect is smaller. So basically a much worse version.

If you tried copying Flaming Sphere, you are doing half the damage and can only move the sphere within a 10ft cube. So again a much worse version.

If you tried copying Hold Person, you aren't getting the paralyzed condition, you are at best getting restrained which again makes it much worse version.

You can't even attempt to copy spells like Suggestion, Levitate, Invisibility, Misty Step, etc...

There are a few spells where it is on par with copying, notably Blindness, but even then Blindness is much better since it's non-concentration.

So yes it has some flexibility in it since it can be anything, but when trying to copy another spell it's pretty much a stricly worse version compared to the dedicated spell.

[redwizard007]

It's not anywhere close to copy any other 2nd level spell though.

If you tried to copy the Web spell, rather then stopping multiple enemies you are at best stopping one person, and the area of effect is smaller. So basically a much worse version.

If you tried copying Flaming Sphere, you are doing half the damage and can only move the sphere within a 10ft cube. So again a much worse version.

If you tried copying Hold Person, you aren't getting the paralyzed condition, you are at best getting restrained which again makes it much worse version.

You can't even attempt to copy spells like Suggestion, Levitate, Invisibility, Misty Step, etc...

There are a few spells where it is on par with copying, notably Blindness, but even then Blindness is much better since it's non-concentration.

So yes it has some flexibility in it since it can be anything, but when trying to copy another spell it's pretty much a stricly worse version compared to the dedicated spell.

I think you missed the relevant part of the quoted text.

QUOTE=Gignere;24236231]...but I also allow it to duplicate any conditions that 1st and 2nd level spells can inflict if the player comes up with a creative illusion[/QUOTE]

My personal opinion is that the spell is poorly written, but fine from a perspective of balance if you don't start expanding on what is already given. Allowing it to do what the Gignere is saying he does would make it overpowered. I'm not going to ask how he does this since it falls into the house rules category, but neither will I assume one couldn't find an argument to justify doing so if one put their mind to it.



For me the larger issues are all based on the god awful spell description. Can the 10' cube move? Can it be changed? Can it limit movement or impede perception? Can the phantasm be superimposed over an existing creature? So much gray area, and I can make logical arguments for and against each point. All I have to go on is some assumptions about game design and a handful of examples that don't clear much up. Thus I'm stuck asking myself what makes sense for a second level spell.

[AdAstra]

Yes PF can produce a force, whether that force is enough to actually move someone is less clear. The force is limited to 1d6 worth of damage, so is 1d6 points of damage enough to push someone? If they aren't expecting to get pushed then sure it could push them, if they were bracing themselves then I doubt it would be strong enough feeling to make them believe they couldn't resist it. It's similar to making a pool of lave with PF, it can make temperature changes but it's not going to make it feel as hot as real lava.

Also PF is limited to a 10ft area, so no you couldn't force them to take the Dash action.

That's objectively not how forced movement works in DnD. You don't need to deal damage to make someone move (grappling, for example), and damage does not automatically force movement. There is zero in-game link between the two. If you go by the idea that failing an investigation check makes a steel box mentally imprison the target, it stands to reason that if the box moved, the target would believe they are being forced to move, and thus move where they think the box is taking them.

PF is not limited to a 10 ft. area. The spell says that the illusion "is no larger than a 10-foot cube". There is nothing there that would prevent movement, at least within the range of the spell (60 ft.). The spell doesn't explicitly state you can move it, but there is no indication that you can't, either. After all, an phantasm of a creature would be pretty pointless if it couldn't chase the target.

[Gignere]

I think you missed the relevant part of the quoted text.

QUOTE=Gignere;24236231]...but I also allow it to duplicate any conditions that 1st and 2nd level spells can inflict if the player comes up with a creative illusion

My personal opinion is that the spell is poorly written, but fine from a perspective of balance if you don't start expanding on what is already given. Allowing it to do what the Gignere is saying he does would make it overpowered. I'm not going to ask how he does this since it falls into the house rules category, but neither will I assume one couldn't find an argument to justify doing so if one put their mind to it.



For me the larger issues are all based on the god awful spell description. Can the 10' cube move? Can it be changed? Can it limit movement or impede perception? Can the phantasm be superimposed over an existing creature? So much gray area, and I can make logical arguments for and against each point. All I have to go on is some assumptions about game design and a handful of examples that don't clear much up. Thus I'm stuck asking myself what makes sense for a second level spell.[/QUOTE]

Why is it OP duplicating one single condition? Do you think a level 2 spell doing 1d6 damage but without a condition is not an underpowered spell?

By my definition it is not overpowered because it is being benchmarked to existing spells of its same or lower level. Wish doesn’t just duplicate a spell it actually remove casting time requirements, material costs, and it duplicates spells not even on your spell list.

All I am allowing phantasmal force to do is to apply a condition that another equal or lower level. Let’s put it another way I allow PF to grant disadvantage to the target and grant the players advantage to hit it along with the d6 damage rider.

If you think that’s too much than I’m not sure what your balance point is with 2nd level spells is.

[Dark.Revenant]

In my games, I effectively impose conditions upon the target based on what the illusion is. For instance, if the grappler bard makes a Phantasmal Force illusion of himself grappling someone, it does 1d6 psychic damage per round, the target is (effectively) grappled, and the target will usually spend their action trying to "break free", which is mechanically represented by an Intelligence (Investigation) check. An illusion of a Bag of Devouring eating your face would do damage and make you blind, etc. These uses are definitely in line for what a 2nd level single target save-or-nothing-happens concentration spell ought to be able to do. I'd say Blinded, Deafened, Grappled, Prone, and Restrained (sparingly) are fair conditions; many of the others don't make sense or remove your Action and would thus be broken.

The DM has broad rights to impose conditions on creatures for any reason, and this is one of those times where it definitely makes sense. The spells itself? Yeah, there are no real rules for how this **** works.

[Evaar]

.
Would the dragon landing not take it out of the 10x10' aoe?

I don’t see any indication in the spell that the illusion is anchored to a specific 10x10 foot cube. If it was, I would expect the spell to include language like “choose a point within range”

Instead it says “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.” The target is a creature within range, not a point. The illusion I described is not larger than a 10 foot cube in any dimension.

Any other concerns?

[Telok]

Lets turn it around. What will work at the table when the DM has an NPC spam it on the party? What uses wouldn't cause issues and arguments?

[Sorinth]

I think you missed the relevant part of the quoted text.

My personal opinion is that the spell is poorly written, but fine from a perspective of balance if you don't start expanding on what is already given. Allowing it to do what the Gignere is saying he does would make it overpowered. I'm not going to ask how he does this since it falls into the house rules category, but neither will I assume one couldn't find an argument to justify doing so if one put their mind to it.



For me the larger issues are all based on the god awful spell description. Can the 10' cube move? Can it be changed? Can it limit movement or impede perception? Can the phantasm be superimposed over an existing creature? So much gray area, and I can make logical arguments for and against each point. All I have to go on is some assumptions about game design and a handful of examples that don't clear much up. Thus I'm stuck asking myself what makes sense for a second level spell.


I think it can impose certain conditions, specifically: Blinded, Grappled or possibly Restrained. But not things like Charmed, Petrified, etc...

If the 10' cube was moveable I would expect it to explicitatly state that you can move it. For example Silent/Major image specifically state that you can move the area by using an action. Are there any spells in the game where you can move the area of effect where it doesn't specifically menion how to move it?

As for what makes sense for a 2nd level spell, imposing a condition like Blinded, or Restrained and doing 1d6 damage per round where they make a save every round seems level equivalent.

[Sorinth]

That's objectively not how forced movement works in DnD. You don't need to deal damage to make someone move (grappling, for example), and damage does not automatically force movement. There is zero in-game link between the two. If you go by the idea that failing an investigation check makes a steel box mentally imprison the target, it stands to reason that if the box moved, the target would believe they are being forced to move, and thus move where they think the box is taking them.

PF is not limited to a 10 ft. area. The spell says that the illusion "is no larger than a 10-foot cube". There is nothing there that would prevent movement, at least within the range of the spell (60 ft.). The spell doesn't explicitly state you can move it, but there is no indication that you can't, either. After all, an phantasm of a creature would be pretty pointless if it couldn't chase the target.

The 1d6 damage gives us an idea of the relative power of the spell. Since 1d6 isn't a lot, it's logical to conclude the amount of force it can bring to bear isn't a lot.

You might be right about PF not being limited to a fixed area. Althoug I'm not sure it changes much. If the PF is something that tries to push the target it's still a limited amount of force and wouldn't knock anyone back unless they were caught by surprise.

[AdAstra]

The 1d6 damage gives us an idea of the relative power of the spell. Since 1d6 isn't a lot, it's logical to conclude the amount of force it can bring to bear isn't a lot.

You might be right about PF not being limited to a fixed area. Althoug I'm not sure it changes much. If the PF is something that tries to push the target it's still a limited amount of force and wouldn't knock anyone back unless they were caught by surprise.

The “force” applied by the spell isn’t real, physical force, it’s the spell making you believe that you are being moved, and you moving as a consequence of thinking that you’re being forced to. Mind over matter and all that. The damage caused by PF is psychic (though the target believes that it’s whatever type is appropriate to the cause), it’s not physical either.

I personally think that this interpretation is wrong, but it is a natural consequence of the “mime” interpretation, which people have proposed and you can read about further up the thread. If the spell can force people to resist their own motion, then it should logically be able to make them move as well. The problem is that this produces somewhat ridiculous results when taken to its conclusion.

[Sorinth]

The “force” applied by the spell isn’t real, physical force, it’s the spell making you believe that you are being moved, and you moving as a consequence of thinking that you’re being forced to. Mind over matter and all that. The damage caused by PF is psychic (though the target believes that it’s whatever type is appropriate to the cause), it’s not physical either.

I personally think that this interpretation is wrong, but it is a natural consequence of the “mime” interpretation, which people have proposed and you can read about further up the thread. If the spell can force people to resist their own motion, then it should logically be able to make them move as well. The problem is that this produces somewhat ridiculous results when taken to its conclusion.

Yes and no, lets say the illusion is of a giant hand trying to push the person. The player will see the hand and feel being pushed, whether they submonciously move themselves because they think they are pushed is entirely dependent on how strong they push feels.

[Glorthindel]

Lets turn it around. What will work at the table when the DM has an NPC spam it on the party? What uses wouldn't cause issues and arguments?

This is my go-to way of ruling spell (or other) shenanigens. To turn the scenario around and ask that if I pulled the same trick on a player, would the players be up in total uproar? And if the answer is yes, then the player cannot do it either.

Generally speaking, this very quickly resolves questions like this.

[Chronos]

The spell doesn't exert any force at all. Remember, the damage it does isn't slashing or fire or whatever, even though the victim might think that it is. The damage is psychic. It's hurting their mind, not their body.

And the spell is unclear on movement, but I think that it being immobile and the caster being able to move it are both the wrong interpretation. I think that it actually moves in the way, and to the extent, that the victim expects it to move. So an illusion of a flaming cage won't move, because the victim won't expect it to, but an illusion of a monster probably would, and would probably chase the victim around the battlefield (though not in a way that the caster could control).

[Chugger]

They probably rationalize the damage and believe it is physical, while under the influence of the spell.

[AdAstra]

This has all been covered already. Especially the damage thing, it’s clearly stated in the spell description.


Yes and no, lets say the illusion is of a giant hand trying to push the person. The player will see the hand and feel being pushed, whether they submonciously move themselves because they think they are pushed is entirely dependent on how strong they push feels.
Again, this is objectively not how forced movement works in the game mechanics. There is no such thing as 1d6 damage worth of forced movement. Grappling does not have to deal damage in order to move the target. The "strength" of the mental push has nothing to do with the damage.

[Segev]

Lets turn it around. What will work at the table when the DM has an NPC spam it on the party? What uses wouldn't cause issues and arguments?


This is my go-to way of ruling spell (or other) shenanigens. To turn the scenario around and ask that if I pulled the same trick on a player, would the players be up in total uproar? And if the answer is yes, then the player cannot do it either.

Generally speaking, this very quickly resolves questions like this.

Generally speaking, I agree.

However, illusions enter a weird territory. If a GM springs a phantasmal force of, say, a cage on his player, he is under no obligation to tell the player that he's perceiving an illusion. The player, like the PC, thus "knows" that a cage appeared around his character.

Let's say that the DM is going with the "it can't hold you if you do anything to try to get out" ruling. So any effort to even walk gently out of the cage will work (because it's not really there) and you'll rationalize the way you got out (bars were really rusty or loose; you slipped through them; the door was open and swung out of your way; whatever). But...the player of the PC doesn't know that literally anything will work. So he may not think to try things like slamming his shoulder into the bars, or wriggling out between them, or the like. He might try picking a lock, or attacking the bars with his sword, or grabbing and shaking them or trying to bend them.

The DM, on the other hand, when his creatures are hit with phantasmal force, can't be kept in the dark about its nature. The player has to tell him what spell he cast. So the DM now has to determine if the creature would try an "automatically successful escape" action, or would try something that definitely would not work because the illusion would prevent it. And no matter how fair-minded he tries to be about it, he can't not take into account his own metaknowledge.

As soon as the human controlling the creature facing an illusion knows it's an illusion, maintaining the same behavior towards it that the creature would have had if the controlling real-world human didn't know is a lot harder. You either start to automatically try to "launder" the knowledge of the illusory nature to the creature, or you start to deliberately take "stupid" actions to avoid accidentally metagaming. And you just can't be sure either way if you're playing it "fair" with the illusion.

Part of the reason I advocate for the "mime" interpretation is because it gives the same behavior whether the player behind the creature knows it's an illusion or not.

[Misterwhisper]

So what people are wanting is a 2nd level spell that :

1. Targets usually the worst save in the game.
2. can apply one or more hampering conditions.
3. does 1d6 psychic damage
4. the target has to spend their action to even get a chance to make a roll to break out
5. can copy the effects of other spells with a better save

All that for a spell you can get at level 3.

Who needs silence, phantasmal force bubble around their head.
Darkness, bah, that gets in the way of your teammates, phantasmal helmet.
Why hold person, that targets wisdom, intelligence is a better save and it can target any creature, and they have to waste turns not just save.
No need to slow someone down, just restrain them any way you want with a hard save.
Wonder how many rounds I can make that enemy caster throw a counter spell if I make an illusion of an archmage about to finger of death him?

I always find it amazing that people can craft any kind of illusion they want to be able to come up with any broken outcome they want and people will kill themselves arguing against it but if a martial class wants to silently take out a guard, nope can't keep someone quiet, not in the rules.

[Segev]

So what people are wanting is a 2nd level spell that :

1. Targets usually the worst save in the game.
2. can apply one or more hampering conditions.
3. does 1d6 psychic damage
4. the target has to spend their action to even get a chance to make a roll to break out
5. can copy the effects of other spells with a better save

All that for a spell you can get at level 3.

Who needs silence, phantasmal force bubble around their head.
Darkness, bah, that gets in the way of your teammates, phantasmal helmet.
Why hold person, that targets wisdom, intelligence is a better save and it can target any creature, and they have to waste turns not just save.
No need to slow someone down, just restrain them any way you want with a hard save.
Wonder how many rounds I can make that enemy caster throw a counter spell if I make an illusion of an archmage about to finger of death him?The trouble is that the alternative can be equally (un)fairly described as "It amazes me how people want a spell that takes Concentration to cost absolutely nothing to completely ignore. Why bother with it, when other spells actually do something?"

The illusion of a goblin or an ogre is irrelevant because the target just moves away from it. It's not like it can follow. The illusion of a wall is pointles; the target will just "charge" it to "break through" and "rationalize" how strong he must be or how the wall was weaker than it looked. The illusion of a pit barring the way will be jumped over, and the target just assumes he must've made it.

So a 2nd level spell slot AND Concentration for 1d6 psychic damage before the spell is ignored by the next round. Yaaaaay.


I always find it amazing that people can craft any kind of illusion they want to be able to come up with any broken outcome they want and people will kill themselves arguing against it but if a martial class wants to silently take out a guard, nope can't keep someone quiet, not in the rules.
I don't think this quite counts as a straw man, but I know it's a fallacy: nobody is arguing that non-casters must be unable to do such things AND that casters must be allowed to. This thread is about phantasmal force, not about non-casters.

[Gignere]

So what people are wanting is a 2nd level spell that :

1. Targets usually the worst save in the game
.

This is not a fair critique though because int wasn’t always such a hard dump stat. This was a design decision made for 5e.

You need silence because you want to silent 3 casters instead of 1 can’t do that with phantasmal force. You need darkness because there is 6 archers you need to blind not one. Every second level spell that applies a condition pretty much either applies it AoE wise or it’s not concentration or the riders are much better than 1d6 of damage.

Even silence when it is applied to one caster is better because if you cast it on a friendly it affords no save and no check to ignore.

It seems like you are overemphasizing the flexibility and short changing the other disables strength compared to phantasmal force.

[Xetheral]

Phantasmal Force works best when you pick an illusion where failing to physically interact with it reinforces the illusion and encourages the target to continue to spend actions sub-optimally. A physical restraint that can't restrain isn't going to impede the target much. By contrast, a threat that cannot be neutralized is terrifying and can preoccupy the target.

The best targets for the spell are those that aren't currently threatened, so that the spell is more likely to become their most pressing concern. Many of the best threats are monsters that are clinging to the target or to the target's ally. An Intellect Devourer on the back of the target's (or the target's Ally's) head, a Mimic in the shape of the target's boot clamped onto a foot, or a Scarab Beatle as a lump burrowing under the skin towards the target's heart are all excellent options likely to induce panic in the target and encourage them to spend their actions trying to save themselves or their ally from the threat. All such efforts will fail, but the target will rationalize the failures, so the apparent threat persists.

Other good options include illusions that have an obvious-yet-time-consuming solution. Visible phenomena are permitted by the spell, so you can (for example) create the illusion that the target's clothes are a raging inferno. If there is a nearby body of water that can be dashed to within a couple rounds, you may have just taken the target out of combat for at least two rounds of dashing to the water, plus the time for whatever the target decides to try when immersing themselves in water fails to extinguish the blaze. (Note that range only matters when casting a spell (unless specified otherwise), so the target moving out of range won't end Phantasmal Force.)

[redwizard007]

Why is it OP duplicating one single condition? Do you think a level 2 spell doing 1d6 damage but without a condition is not an underpowered spell?
because that isn't what you actually said. What you said was...

I allow PF to do this but I also allow it to duplicate any conditions that 1st and 2nd level spells can inflict if the player comes up with a creative illusion.
While having a slightly reduced effect from a single spell would be fine (although odd.) Allowing it to duplicate ANY conditions that a 1st or 2nd level spell could inflict would be far too much versatility.


I don’t see any indication in the spell that the illusion is anchored to a specific 10x10 foot cube...
Correct, and while this is my own personal opinion because the AOE is actually inside the mind of the target rather than a point outside it, it seems to run counter to much of the online community. Because...

If the 10' cube was moveable I would expect it to explicitatly state that you can move it. For example Silent/Major image specifically state that you can move the area by using an action. Are there any spells in the game where you can move the area of effect where it doesn't specifically menion how to move it?
Which makes perfect sense, except possibly because its a hallucination rather than an illusion. Except, again, because it specifically IS an illusion even though only one person can see it...


As for what makes sense for a 2nd level spell, imposing a condition like Blinded, or Restrained and doing 1d6 damage per round where they make a save every round seems level equivalent.
Except that spells already exist to do those things, and don't get the damage rider. Usually when building on an existing spell and adding things you increase the spell level.


So a 2nd level spell slot AND Concentration for 1d6 psychic damage before the spell is ignored by the next round. Yaaaaay.
Yeah, that would suck. So where is the middle ground between garbage and OP? I'm really looking for an answer here not just arguing. The campaign I'm running is going to be loaded with creatures that can cast PF, so I'm trying to find something that actually works.

My views have shifted slightly since this thread started, but this is where I'm at right now. Adjustments are in bold
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 can be mobile or not as appropriate, but may never be more than 60 feet from the target.

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. This Intelligence (Investigation) check may be substituted for any other ability or skill check used to resist the phantasm. Example: trying to break free of phantasmal manacles, slip away from a phantasmal constrictor, bend the bars or pick the lock of a phantasmal cage, or prevent falling into a hidden pit trap. Attempts to avoid a stationary phantasm use the targets traditional skills or movement as necessary. Example: Strength (Athletics) to jump over a phantasmal pit.

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. This does not prevent the target from attempting to struggle against the phantasm which would often trigger a Intelligence (Investigation) check as mentioned above.

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. Note that attacking and defending are not sufficient to trigger an Intelligence (Investigation) check, although a combat that progressed at an unusual pace may lead to the target consciously deciding to make the check.

This spell is not capable of inflicting any conditions on the target although the target may believe its self to be affected by them. A target "blinded" by an obscuring object, for example, is still aware of its surroundings and doesn't suffer disadvantage on attacks nor grant advantage to opponents, but the target does not recognize this fact and will chose actions it feels make sense if it were blinded. A "grappled" target can move normally, though may not try to. A "deafened" target still knows what its allies tell it even while screaming that he can't hear them. Etc.

True Sight has no affect on the target because this spell creates a hallucination rather than an illusion



It is still a mess, but its a starting point.

[Gignere]

because that isn't what you actually said. What you said was...

While having a slightly reduced effect from a single spell would be fine (although odd.) Allowing it to duplicate ANY conditions that a 1st or 2nd level spell could inflict would be far too much versatility.


Correct, and while this is my own personal opinion because the AOE is actually inside the mind of the target rather than a point outside it, it seems to run counter to much of the online community. Because...

Which makes perfect sense, except possibly because its a hallucination rather than an illusion. Except, again, because it specifically IS an illusion even though only one person can see it...


Except that spells already exist to do those things, and don't get the damage rider. Usually when building on an existing spell and adding things you increase the spell level.


Yeah, that would suck. So where is the middle ground between garbage and OP? I'm really looking for an answer here not just arguing. The campaign I'm running is going to be loaded with creatures that can cast PF, so I'm trying to find something that actually works.

It is still a mess, but its a starting point.

It’s only a mess because you are adamant about not applying conditions, when other level 1 and 2 spells already apply conditions and generally with better riders like AoE or no concentration or auto crits.

Like how do you take actions that you are blind but are still aware of surroundings. You’ll have a lot of arguments on the table.

I’ve implemented conditions with PF in my game and there was zero balance issues. So this is from experience not theorycraft, it plays nothing like wish at level 2.

Guess what players still picked web, blindness, and other disables along with PF. Nowhere was PF the disable to rule them all even with my “liberal” afflicting of conditions. Once they got higher level disables they stopped using PF too.

[redwizard007]

It’s only a mess because you are adamant about not applying conditions, when other level 1 and 2 spells already apply conditions and generally with better riders like AoE or no concentration or auto crits.

Like how do you take actions that you are blind but are still aware of surroundings. You’ll have a lot of arguments on the table.

I’ve implemented conditions with PF in my game and there was zero balance issues. So this is from experience not theorycraft, it plays nothing like wish at level 2.

Guess what players still picked web, blindness, and other disables along with PF. Nowhere was PF the disable to rule them all even with my “liberal” afflicting of conditions. Once they got higher level disables they stopped using PF too.

Im not saying you are using the spell wrong, just that it doesn't mesh with how I read it. So walk me through your thought process.

Why should it grant access to a diverse selection of conditions?

What was your reasoning?

What held your players back from using PF constantly?

Did Blindness/Deafness still see use?

How did you adjudicate what prompts an Investigation check?

Can the phantasm move?

Etc

[AdAstra]

Let's do some actual spell comparisons. Gonna be covering all characteristics and comparable spells that I find relevant, but if someone wants to add something feel free to say. Labeling with a + or - based on what I see as an advantage/disadvantage compared to PF.

It's important to note that not only are Int saves rare, few if any monsters have proficiency in Investigation. So even creatures proficient in Int saves will lose that if they fail the first.
The spell can also produce a wide range of effects, giving it a level of versatility not afforded to other spells
However, depending on interpretation it may not work on creatures with Truesight. Blindsight might still be affected since the illusion produces non-visual stimuli, but Truesight explicitly allows you to automatically detect and succeed on saving throws against visual illusions. If the phantasm has any visual component whatsoever it should be immediately detectable as such.
It also does not work on undead or constructs.

Hold Person
+VERY strong condition. Far stronger than anything that PF could do except perhaps force the target into a deadly hazard. Of course, it's easy to grapple a paralyzed target as well.
+Scales
-Limited to Humanoids, making it far less versatile
-Targets a save that is generally stronger
=target saves at the end of every turn automatically. This is offset by the fact that they lose their turn.

Blindness/Deafness
+NON-CONCENTRATION. If you don't understand how valuable this is as a trait for a spell with a duration I can't help you.
+Scales
+Depending on DM interpretation, works even on creatures with Truesight, and if a creature is wholly dependent on audio-based Blindsight, Deafness should work (pretty rare though).
-Targets a save that is very frequently very strong.
-A fairly strong, but not crippling debuff. The target still has movement and actions. If you allow the target to be Restrained, Blindness will be notably worse.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter
+1st level spell vs. 2nd
+Completely disables the target. For many monsters and effects PF can produce a similar effect, however.
=The target is prone. This could be good or bad depending on who's attacking. It's usually good though
-Targets a save that's generally stronger
-Target gets a save at the end of its turn AND one at advantage whenever someone attacks it. Chances are once attacks are being made the target will snap out of it quickly.
-Int 4 or lower creatures are unaffected.

Ensnaring Strike
+1st level spell
+Bonus action casting. Due to how it works however this is slightly offset.
=Can inflict similar conditions. Restrained is about the most you can do with PF, and the damage is even the same
-Both take an action to remove. However, OTHER creatures can try to free the target.
-Targets a save that is generally stronger.
-Large+ creatures have advantage on the save.
-Requires you to hit the target with a weapon attack before they can be affected. One might not be able to actually use the spell the round they cast it.

[CapnWildefyr]

Segev has pretty much been nailing this, but here are a few more points to clarify adjucating PF. First, consider believability. Some examples that are being used suffer from believability problems, and should lead to a target making a check and sometimes making the check at advantage. Use that as a counterbalance. Example: If a wizard opens combat against a powerful dragon with meteor swarm, why would the dragon think a PF of a wall of fire is fake? But if the same wizard opened combat with 2 rounds of magic missile? Who does that if they have wall of fire?

Another example: the door across an open arch. If a barbarian starts to ram it, does the rest of the party say anything? I mean, if it's only in his mind, wont they say something? Then he should get advantage. If it's just the barb alone in a hallway, then whether he gets through the door is handled like Segev said. But also--is the door like every other door in the hall? That might get some people thinking.

Suppose only a rogue is there, no friends nearby. Did the caster put a lock in the door? Can he make that lock feel real when the rogue tries to pick it?

Please note I am trying to create a rule, merely pointing out that the spell is not overpowering when interpreted as Segev suggests, and adjucated like everything else.

The best illusions are simple things that you have experienced. If not, then you have a harder time keeping them real enough to prevent that Investigation check. If a caster wants to keep someone from entering an open hall, make a wall.

[Gignere]

Im not saying you are using the spell wrong, just that it doesn't mesh with how I read it. So walk me through your thought process.

Why should it grant access to a diverse selection of conditions?

What was your reasoning?

What held your players back from using PF constantly?

Did Blindness/Deafness still see use?

How did you adjudicate what prompts an Investigation check?

Can the phantasm move?

Etc

Well maybe it’s play style, to me all the different conditions basically boils down to it grants advantage/disadvantage so I don’t even think of it as different conditions.

Also I allow martials to gain advantage pretty generously too, like if the rogue said I’ll walk up the wall and than flip to land behind the mob and hit him. He rolls and if it’s a high enough number I’ll be like damn that’s cool you get advantage on the attack.

So to me encouraging creative use of PF is like encouraging creative use of skills/actions for players. I pass out advantage like candy and it makes for a much more fun and exciting games. Instead of I walk up to mob and roll attack or I stand there and cast my fireball.

PF is concentration you can only have one of those up and it’s single target. Concentrating on buff PF is out, need to disable more than one enemy PF is out. Fighting a mindflayer don’t even prepare PF.

Blindness/Deafness is one of the best disable because it’s no concentration. Hells yeah it saw use because no concentration. Concentrating on PF need another disable blindness/deafness. Concentrating on haste need disable, blindness/deafness.

As for investigate I’m also liberal as long as the target spends an action interact with it that’s an investigation check. I spend my action breaking out the manacles ok investigation check.

As for movement this actually never came up, because typically the target succumbing to PF is usually dead or it investigates and gets out of the illusion in a short round or two.

[redwizard007]

Well maybe it’s play style, to me all the different conditions basically boils down to it grants advantage/disadvantage so I don’t even think of it as different conditions.

Also I allow martials to gain advantage pretty generously too, like if the rogue said I’ll walk up the wall and than flip to land behind the mob and hit him. He rolls and if it’s a high enough number I’ll be like damn that’s cool you get advantage on the attack.

So to me encouraging creative use of PF is like encouraging creative use of skills/actions for players. I pass out advantage like candy and it makes for a much more fun and exciting games. Instead of I walk up to mob and roll attack or I stand there and cast my fireball.

PF is concentration you can only have one of those up and it’s single target. Concentrating on buff PF is out, need to disable more than one enemy PF is out. Fighting a mindflayer don’t even prepare PF.

Blindness/Deafness is one of the best disable because it’s no concentration. Hells yeah it saw use because no concentration. Concentrating on PF need another disable blindness/deafness. Concentrating on haste need disable, blindness/deafness.

As for investigate I’m also liberal as long as the target spends an action interact with it that’s an investigation check. I spend my action breaking out the manacles ok investigation check.

As for movement this actually never came up, because typically the target succumbing to PF is usually dead or it investigates and gets out of the illusion in a short round or two.

Looks fun and consistent with the other things you are doing, it's just not quite right for me. Still, I'm going to adopt your True Sight interaction. Even though I feel like it shouldn't affect hallucinations, TS is a pretty powerful spell and shouldn't be circumvented by a 2nd level illusion. I may adopt the easily allowed Investigation checks too.

[Gignere]

Let's do some actual spell comparisons. Gonna be covering all characteristics and comparable spells that I find relevant, but if someone wants to add something feel free to say. Labeling with a + or - based on what I see as an advantage/disadvantage compared to PF.

It's important to note that not only are Int saves rare, few if any monsters have proficiency in Investigation. So even creatures proficient in Int saves will lose that if they fail the first.
The spell can also produce a wide range of effects, giving it a level of versatility not afforded to other spells
However, depending on interpretation it may not work on creatures with Truesight. Blindsight might still be affected since the illusion produces non-visual stimuli, but Truesight explicitly allows you to automatically detect and succeed on saving throws against visual illusions. If the phantasm has any visual component whatsoever it should be immediately detectable as such.

Hold Person
+VERY strong condition. Far stronger than anything that PF could do except perhaps force the target into a deadly hazard. Of course, it's easy to grapple a paralyzed target as well.
+Scales
-Limited to Humanoids, making it far less versatile
-Targets a save that is generally stronger
=target saves at the end of every turn automatically. This is offset by the fact that they lose their turn.

Blindness/Deafness
+NON-CONCENTRATION. If you don't understand how valuable this is as a trait for a spell with a duration I can't help you.
+Scales
+Depending on DM interpretation, works even on creatures with Truesight, and if a creature is wholly dependent on audio-based Blindsight, Deafness should work (pretty rare though).
-Targets a save that is very frequently very strong.
-A fairly strong, but not crippling debuff. The target still has movement and actions. If you allow the target to be Restrained, Blindness will be notably worse.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter
+1st level spell vs. 2nd
+Completely disables the target. For many monsters and effects PF can produce a similar effect, however.
=The target is prone. This could be good or bad depending on who's attacking. It's usually good though
-Targets a save that's generally stronger
-Target gets a save at the end of its turn AND one at advantage whenever someone attacks it. Chances are once attacks are being made the target will snap out of it quickly.
-Int 4 or lower creatures are unaffected.

Ensnaring Strike
+1st level spell
+Bonus action casting. Due to how it works however this is slightly offset.
=Can inflict similar conditions. Restrained is about the most you can do with PF, and the damage is even the same
-Both take an action to remove. However, OTHER creatures can try to free the target.
-Targets a save that is generally stronger.
-Large+ creatures have advantage on the save.
-Requires you to hit the target with a weapon attack before they can be affected. One might not be able to actually use the spell the round they cast it.

You left out that Construct and undead are immune to PF.

[redwizard007]

You left out that Construct and undead are immune to PF.

AFB right now, but aren't they immune to all the spells he listed?

[AdAstra]

AFB right now, but aren't they immune to all the spells he listed?

Nope, except for Hold Person, of course. Even Tasha's works on undead with enough Int somehow. I'll add that in

[Gignere]

AFB right now, but aren't they immune to all the spells he listed?

No only hold person. The other ones hit everything, Tasha’s hit everything with int 4+.

[Gignere]

Nope, except for Hold Person, of course. Even Tasha's works on undead with enough Int somehow. I'll add that in

I Tasha proned killed a flying shadow red dragon. It dropped 500+ feet.

[AdAstra]

Given this, I think Blinded OR Restrained are probably fair enough conditions for PF to impose from a balance perspective. Probably not both though, as while there are not many non-overlapping effects, some important ones exist (a lot of spells require you to see the target, while Restrained prevents movement and imposes disadvantage on Dex saves).

[redwizard007]

Nope, except for Hold Person, of course. Even Tasha's works on undead with enough Int somehow. I'll add that in

That just feels wrong. I'll take it, but... ugh!


I Tasha proned killed a flying shadow red dragon. It dropped 500+ feet.

I would pay to see the DMs face when he failed that save.

[Gignere]

Given this, I think Blinded OR Restrained are probably fair enough conditions for PF to impose from a balance perspective. Probably not both though, as while there are not many non-overlapping effects, some important ones exist (a lot of spells require you to see the target, while Restrained prevents movement and imposes disadvantage on Dex saves).

Yes I only allow one condition not two. Players work within that parameter. But any condition from 1st 2nd Levels spells are fair game if they get creative enough. Typically my players are smart enough to blind spell casters and restrain hp bags.

[Sorinth]

So what people are wanting is a 2nd level spell that :

1. Targets usually the worst save in the game.
2. can apply one or more hampering conditions.
3. does 1d6 psychic damage
4. the target has to spend their action to even get a chance to make a roll to break out
5. can copy the effects of other spells with a better save

All that for a spell you can get at level 3.

Who needs silence, phantasmal force bubble around their head.
Darkness, bah, that gets in the way of your teammates, phantasmal helmet.
Why hold person, that targets wisdom, intelligence is a better save and it can target any creature, and they have to waste turns not just save.
No need to slow someone down, just restrain them any way you want with a hard save.
Wonder how many rounds I can make that enemy caster throw a counter spell if I make an illusion of an archmage about to finger of death him?

I always find it amazing that people can craft any kind of illusion they want to be able to come up with any broken outcome they want and people will kill themselves arguing against it but if a martial class wants to silently take out a guard, nope can't keep someone quiet, not in the rules.

There's no save against silence, and anytime you actually want to silence something such as using it to prevent an alarm from ringing PF is useless.

Darkness is the same, there's no save, and having an area of effect of actual darkness is generally going to be more useful then a single target effect that they can actually save against. After all the Blindness spell doesn't make Darkness useless.

For Hold Person, you can't get the Paralyzed conditions which grants auto-crits, the best you can get is either Grappled or maybe Restrained. Also claiming PF is better then HP because it causes them to waste an action is just bizarre, under hold person they completly lose their turn.

As for the counterspell example that's just bizarre. Either a wizard with counterspell knows the spell being cast before deciding to counterspell, in which case he knows you cast PF, or he doesn't know in which case he doesn't know that PF is going to try and Finger of Death him. And if he was going to counterspell an unkown spell from the PF illusion, he probably would've counterspelled the PF cast.

PF gives you versatility because it can mimic different effects, but as a general rule the effect you mimic is not as good as the real thing.

[Sorinth]

Given this, I think Blinded OR Restrained are probably fair enough conditions for PF to impose from a balance perspective. Probably not both though, as while there are not many non-overlapping effects, some important ones exist (a lot of spells require you to see the target, while Restrained prevents movement and imposes disadvantage on Dex saves).

I generally rule that a blinded character can't see the illusionary restraints and therefore has no knowledge of them beyond the small amount of force that PF can mimic. So they'll feel something trying to hold them back, but without seeing the restraints they can't know if the restraints should be strong enough to hold them and therefore the mind can't trick them into restraining themselves.

[Sorinth]

My views have shifted slightly since this thread started, but this is where I'm at right now. Adjustments are in bold
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 can be mobile or not as appropriate, but may never be more than 60 feet from the target.

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. This Intelligence (Investigation) check may be substituted for any other ability or skill check used to resist the phantasm. Example: trying to break free of phantasmal manacles, slip away from a phantasmal constrictor, bend the bars or pick the lock of a phantasmal cage, or prevent falling into a hidden pit trap. Attempts to avoid a stationary phantasm use the targets traditional skills or movement as necessary. Example: Strength (Athletics) to jump over a phantasmal pit.

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. This does not prevent the target from attempting to struggle against the phantasm which would often trigger a Intelligence (Investigation) check as mentioned above.

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. Note that attacking and defending are not sufficient to trigger an Intelligence (Investigation) check, although a combat that progressed at an unusual pace may lead to the target consciously deciding to make the check.

This spell is not capable of inflicting any conditions on the target although the target may believe its self to be affected by them. A target "blinded" by an obscuring object, for example, is still aware of its surroundings and doesn't suffer disadvantage on attacks nor grant advantage to opponents, but the target does not recognize this fact and will chose actions it feels make sense if it were blinded. A "grappled" target can move normally, though may not try to. A "deafened" target still knows what its allies tell it even while screaming that he can't hear them. Etc.

True Sight has no affect on the target because this spell creates a hallucination rather than an illusion



It is still a mess, but its a starting point.

I'm personally more in favour of allowing strong effects to happen but extra ways to break the effect. So for example if someone attacks the phantasm they would get an investigation check for each attack they make, if the illusion can be broken my movement and they try to move through it, they get a check but would still have there an action to do something.

Allowing potentially multiple checks a turn balances out the fact that it's generally a harder save.

Also I tend to prefer having the player roll whatever check is approriate but pretend that it's an opposed roll. So the roll I actually make is just the players investigate check.

[Gignere]

I'm personally more in favour of allowing strong effects to happen but extra ways to break the effect. So for example if someone attacks the phantasm they would get an investigation check for each attack they make, if the illusion can be broken my movement and they try to move through it, they get a check but would still have there an action to do something.

Allowing potentially multiple checks a turn balances out the fact that it's generally a harder save.

Also I tend to prefer having the player roll whatever check is approriate but pretend that it's an opposed roll. So the roll I actually make is just the players investigate check.

Allowing multiple checks a turn actually guts PF. Even with a dumped stat int at level 3 and no proficiency all someone need to roll is a 14 to pass the investigate check. (Assuming the caster is optimized)

35% with one check a turn to break free, with two checks that goes to almost 58% with a third check you’re at 73% basically making the spell just about useless. This is with a dump stat and no proficiency, with a slightly better int score or even proficiency or the caster didn’t optimize, allowing multiple checks per turn PF becomes a single turn disable and definitely not worth a second level slot.

People trying to make adjustments with their feeling should instead math it out and benchmark it to other level 1 and 2 spells. It’s how I came to my house rulings on PF. People forget that with bounded accuracy a dump stat save without proficiency versus a save with proficiency isn’t order of magnitudes different. At low levels it literally could be a 10% difference.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes I only allow one condition not two. Players work within that parameter. But any condition from 1st 2nd Levels spells are fair game if they get creative enough. Typically my players are smart enough to blind spell casters and restrain hp bags.

See, problem is that paralyzed is condition available from level 2 spell. And it's incredibly easy to inflict with PF under your houserules. "The target is encased in a block of red-hot adamantine". There, paralyzed, effectively blinded (but not really, because it's not a condition, just an "object" in the LoS, so it goes around your "one condition" rule), taking psychic damage, and still targettable by anyone else. There's no reason to use PF to do anything else (well, unless you want to damage creatures that wouldn't consider fire dangerous) in combat.

It's not creative, it's not balanced, and it's a direct result of your houserules.

[Gignere]

See, problem is that paralyzed is condition available from level 2 spell. And it's incredibly easy to inflict with PF under your houserules. "The target is encased in a block of red-hot adamantine". There, paralyzed, effectively blinded (but not really, because it's not a condition, just an "object" in the LoS, so it goes around your "one condition" rule), taking psychic damage, and still targettable by anyone else. There's no reason to use PF to do anything else (well, unless you want to damage creatures that wouldn't consider fire dangerous) in combat.

It's not creative, it's not balanced, and it's a direct result of your houserules.

Well they have to pick one condition. Anyway no one abused it as such but most things can be abused even if you write a full law treatise. Honestly not one player tried to argue for the paralyze condition when we played it, so I will worry about when it comes to it. But you make a good point just ban paralyze as a condition and you’ll be good.

Edit: Also i think it has to be something someone is familiar with I think that’s why my players didn’t try it. No one knows how it feels or how it should even feel covered in a block of adamantine. Are you positive someone will be paralyzed? How do you convince that they’re covered in adamantine and not steel? I mean if you try that at my table I think the other players will scream munchkin and I don’t even have to step in as DM.

However manacles and chains are stuff reasonable people and monsters has come in contact with. Same with a blindfold or a monster swallowing them.

[JackPhoenix]

Well they have to pick one condition. Anyway no one abused it as such but most things can be abused even if you write a full law treatise. Honestly not one player tried to argue for the paralyze condition when we played it, so I will worry about when it comes to it. But you make a good point just ban paralyze as a condition and you’ll be good.

Or, you may stick with the spell as it is, and not need to worry about uninteded issues with your houserules that require fixing afterwards.

Edit due to edit:
Edit: Also i think it has to be something someone is familiar with I think that’s why my players didn’t try it. No one knows how it feels or how it should even feel covered in a block of adamantine. Are you positive someone will be paralyzed? How do you convince that they’re covered in adamantine and not steel? I mean if you try that at my table I think the other players will scream munchkin and I don’t even have to step in as DM.

It doesn't matter if it's adamantine, steel, stone or block of ice. And neither the caster or the target needs to know how would it feel, the magic takes care of that.

[Crgaston]

Or, you may stick with the spell as it is, and not need to worry about uninteded issues with your houserules that require fixing afterwards.
Wow, dude. That's mighty large of you to allow another poster that option. Your magnanimity knows no bounds.

[Segev]

Or, you may stick with the spell as it is, and not need to worry about uninteded issues with your houserules that require fixing afterwards.


That's wonderful! The spell is as I said it is. :P

Less cheekily, the trouble is that the spell doesn't specify. So "the spell as it is" is whatever the DM rules.

[JackPhoenix]

That's wonderful! The spell is as I said it is. :P

Less cheekily, the trouble is that the spell doesn't specify. So "the spell as it is" is whatever the DM rules.

Does the spell mentions any conditions? No? Then it does not impose any conditions.
Does the spell say anything about influencing the target's movement? No? Then it lacks power to stop or force the target to move.

[Sorinth]

Allowing multiple checks a turn actually guts PF. Even with a dumped stat int at level 3 and no proficiency all someone need to roll is a 14 to pass the investigate check. (Assuming the caster is optimized)

35% with one check a turn to break free, with two checks that goes to almost 58% with a third check you’re at 73% basically making the spell just about useless. This is with a dump stat and no proficiency, with a slightly better int score or even proficiency or the caster didn’t optimize, allowing multiple checks per turn PF becomes a single turn disable and definitely not worth a second level slot.

People trying to make adjustments with their feeling should instead math it out and benchmark it to other level 1 and 2 spells. It’s how I came to my house rulings on PF. People forget that with bounded accuracy a dump stat save without proficiency versus a save with proficiency isn’t order of magnitudes different. At low levels it literally could be a 10% difference.

Keep in mind most of the time it wouldn't be multiple checks per round. If you create an illusionary monster for the target to fight, then they only get more then one check if they have multi-attack.

Someone who gets manacled, I'd give them a free check if they tried to move, but at the same time why are they moving if they think they are manacled? They would have to have an actual reason to attempt doing that to get a free check. If on the other hand they got hit by a thunder wave, they'd get a free check, failure means they find a way to rationalize how they got pushed 10ft, but are still chained to the same spot.

[AdAstra]

Does the spell mentions any conditions? No? Then it does not impose any conditions.
Does the spell say anything about influencing the target's movement? No? Then it lacks power to stop or force the target to move.

Well strictly speaking, if you say, made a person imagine a sack over their head, they're not Blinded per se, it's just that everything around them is heavily obscured. So it's not so much imposing a condition as it is just preventing them from using their senses the normal way.

[Sorinth]

It doesn't matter if it's adamantine, steel, stone or block of ice. And neither the caster or the target needs to know how would it feel, the magic takes care of that.

Disagree, it's a mind-effecting spell, what the target thinks should happen is extremely relevant because it's the mind that is actually causing the effects. If you PF a pool of lava, against a fire immune monster they aren't going to take any damage because in order to take damage they have to believe they are going to take damage.

That's why if you blind someone, it's basically irrelevant how you do it, they are blind and therefore have no idea whether they are just blindfolded or encased in adamantine. So they wouldn't be paralyzed, which for the record they would never be, at best they would be restrained but more likely just grappled.

[JackPhoenix]

Well strictly speaking, if you say, made a person imagine a sack over their head, they're not Blinded per se, it's just that everything around them is heavily obscured. So it's not so much imposing a condition as it is just preventing them from using their senses the normal way.

Indeed, and the spell allows that, due to the illusion being visual. So does Minor Illusion of a box, though that one will easily be broken by any physical contact.


That's why if you blind someone, it's basically irrelevant how you do it, they are blind and therefore have no idea whether they are just blindfolded or encased in adamantine.

It's not irrelevant. If you can't see due to opaque obstacle, you don't have blinded condition. Lesser Restoration doesn't allow you to see through blindfolds, because you aren't actually blind.


So they wouldn't be paralyzed, which for the record they would never be, at best they would be restrained but more likely just grappled.

Well, they wouldn't be paralyzed, restrained or grappled, because the spell can't inflict either of those conditions. But with the houserules allowing it to inflict conditions, they would be: grappled just stops you from moving, but you can still attack and do anything else, and restrain still allows attacking, though at disadvantage. Neither condition fits for being fully encased in a solid material. Paralyzed does.

[Sorinth]

Indeed, and the spell allows that, due to the illusion being visual. So does Minor Illusion of a box, though that one will easily be broken by any physical contact.



It's not irrelevant. If you can't see due to opaque obstacle, you don't have blinded condition. Lesser Restoration doesn't allow you to see through blindfolds, because you aren't actually blind.



Well, they wouldn't be paralyzed, restrained or grappled, because the spell can't inflict either of those conditions. But with the houserules allowing it to inflict conditions, they would be: grappled just stops you from moving, but you can still attack and do anything else, and restrain still allows attacking, though at disadvantage. Neither condition fits for being fully encased in a solid material. Paralyzed does.

So if someone was wearing an actual physical blindfold you don't think they would have the blinded condition?

[Gignere]

So if someone was wearing an actual physical blindfold you don't think they would have the blinded condition?

It’s not RAW so I don’t think Jack is going to give it the condition. ;)

[JackPhoenix]

So if someone was wearing an actual physical blindfold you don't think they would have the blinded condition?

Note how heavy obscurement work: it *effectively* give the observer the condition. End result is pretty much the same, difference is that the condition can't be removed.... otherwise, Lesser Restoration would allow you to see through darkness, fog or solid objects when it removes the blinded condition, which is obviously a nonsense.

[Aimeryan]

Note how heavy obscurement work: it *effectively* give the observer the condition. End result is pretty much the same, difference is that the condition can't be removed.... otherwise, Lesser Restoration would allow you to see through darkness, fog or solid objects when it removes the blinded condition, which is obviously a nonsense.

You are talking about two different things, here. A medically-inflicted condition such as blinded via cataracts can be cured by Lesser Restoration. A situationally-inflicted condition such as blinded via blindfold cannot; the situation needs to change, instead - otherwise even if Lesser Restoration did end the condition it is going to immediately be reapplied. PF does the latter as the target perceives it, so Greater Restoration would be of no use.

[Chronos]

The people who argue that it's overpowered generally ignore that it has its own limitations built in. Yes, you can make someone believe that something is real, but you still can't control how they react to it. They might believe that the monster is real, but it's just one more target among many, and if they choose targets randomly, or by who's doing the most damage to them, they'll probably still target a party member. They might believe that a cage is real, but they might decide to just cast spells or shoot arrows through the bars. If you put a solid helmet on their head, then they'll know that something is blocking their vision, but they won't have any way of knowing it's a helmet, because all they know is it's something they can't see through, so they won't act like it's a helmet (they might, for instance, think it's a darkness spell instead, and so try to move out of the area).

[Crgaston]

Note how heavy obscurement work: it *effectively* give the observer the condition. End result is pretty much the same, difference is that the condition can't be removed.... otherwise, Lesser Restoration would allow you to see through darkness, fog or solid objects when it removes the blinded condition, which is obviously a nonsense.


You are talking about two different things, here. A medically-inflicted condition such as blinded via cataracts can be cured by Lesser Restoration. A situationally-inflicted condition such as blinded via blindfold cannot; the situation needs to change, instead - otherwise even if Lesser Restoration did end the condition it is going to immediately be reapplied. PF does the latter as the target perceives it, so Greater Restoration would be of no use.

Aimeryan, you are essentially making the same point as JP here. :)

[JackPhoenix]

Aimeryan, you are essentially making the same point as JP here. :)

I've missed "because there isn't actually any condition" after "the condition can't be removed".

I've checked bestiary, there are few creatures immune to blinded condition without special senses like blindsight or tremorsense. I'm pretty sure Acererak isn't supposed to see through solid objects, which is what would be possible if he was immune to "effective blindness" caused by heavy obscurement blocking his LoS (he's got Truesight, so he ignores illusions and magic darkness, though).

[diplomancer]

I think that the best comparison is to entangle.

Entangle targets a stronger save (and check to break out with an action), doesn't have the negligible damage rider, but it can affect multiple creatures and is one level lower. Though it cannot affect flying creatures (I think), it does affect undead and constructs. It also has the penalty that, if the creature is immune to being restrained, it's useless.

So, they look really balanced to me if you use phantasmal force to restrain the creature; if anything, entangle is stronger.

[Sir_Solifuge]

One pitfall I see a lot of folks in the thread making, comes from the fact that we cannot imagine how certain creatures/monsters/beasts/etc. would react.

I can guesstimate that a goblin would run away screaming from hallucinating that a massive ogre (or other terrifying 10ft tall creature) was standing before them roaring bloody murder, but then again that's based off of lore talking about goblins being cunning but sadly weak and easily frightened, more so than stand and fighty. They very easily could look at the ogre and fall madly in love with their beauty, the multiple chin rolls glistening with sweat could just make the goblin feel all warm and tingly.

Problem is, both as a player or a DM I don't and can't know how that goblin would actually react to this "real" (as they perceive it as completely real) presence. Any action taken is an approximation.

Additionally, IMO, any condition should be able to be handed out by the DM at any point given environmental conditions. Something I see happen so little. If you're walking through a creepy swamp, or seeing absolutely horrific things after a battle, why wouldn't you be terrified (Fear) or if stress is causing such a tenseness in your body, why wouldn't you be held fast from reacting as normal (Restrained- maybe even Paralyzed). Therefore, I feel like if the actions of a creature believing something is real would result in a conditioned behavior, then sure the DM has every right to be able to apply conditions to them and the spell can be crafted (via player or DM imagination) to try and focus on that outcome.




However, illusions enter a weird territory. If a GM springs a phantasmal force of, say, a cage on his player, he is under no obligation to tell the player that he's perceiving an illusion. The player, like the PC, thus "knows" that a cage appeared around his character.

Let's say that the DM is going with the "it can't hold you if you do anything to try to get out" ruling. So any effort to even walk gently out of the cage will work (because it's not really there) and you'll rationalize the way you got out (bars were really rusty or loose; you slipped through them; the door was open and swung out of your way; whatever). But...the player of the PC doesn't know that literally anything will work. So he may not think to try things like slamming his shoulder into the bars, or wriggling out between them, or the like. He might try picking a lock, or attacking the bars with his sword, or grabbing and shaking them or trying to bend them.

The DM, on the other hand, when his creatures are hit with phantasmal force, can't be kept in the dark about its nature. The player has to tell him what spell he cast. So the DM now has to determine if the creature would try an "automatically successful escape" action, or would try something that definitely would not work because the illusion would prevent it. And no matter how fair-minded he tries to be about it, he can't not take into account his own metaknowledge.

As soon as the human controlling the creature facing an illusion knows it's an illusion, maintaining the same behavior towards it that the creature would have had if the controlling real-world human didn't know is a lot harder. You either start to automatically try to "launder" the knowledge of the illusory nature to the creature, or you start to deliberately take "stupid" actions to avoid accidentally metagaming. And you just can't be sure either way if you're playing it "fair" with the illusion.

Part of the reason I advocate for the "mime" interpretation is because it gives the same behavior whether the player behind the creature knows it's an illusion or not.

Personally, reading this made me realize just how absurd that fact is. Why do we tell our DM that we're casting a spell at all? We should say ti the same way as the DM.

"A cage of solid looking bars suddenly appears around *Generic NPC Grunt Alpha* that only can see."



And that's it. Don't give the DM anything more unless literally required.

If a save is required, then yes preemptive explanation should be given, but I personally feel like this is a prime example of how players should be given more leeway to make the DM not as omniscient as they tend to be. Even if a save is required, just say "Go ahead and have *Generic NPC Grunt Alpha* make a save for me. Okay, they failed? Gotcha then [insert random spell effect you're applying here] happens as [insert random arcane/divine/fiendish/elemental/naturalistic/etc. environmental cue] overcomes them."

If the DM sees something as potential foul-play, after the fact they can ask what spell was cast, but this is more to make sure they can adjudicate. Otherwise, they have been given everything they need to know. They're still the DM, so they're totally omnipotent, but they don't have to be (and IMO [I]shouldn't) be omniscient all the time.

[Aimeryan]

I've checked bestiary, there are few creatures immune to blinded condition without special senses like blindsight or tremorsense. I'm pretty sure Acererak isn't supposed to see through solid objects, which is what would be possible if he was immune to "effective blindness" caused by heavy obscurement blocking his LoS (he's got Truesight, so he ignores illusions and magic darkness, though).

Would Acererak have disadvantage on his attack rolls and attack rolls against him have advantage, if say a tarpaulin was draped over his head? Technically he is immune to the Blinded condition, so, no?

Likewise, would wrapping yourself in a bedsheet stop him from casting spells at you that require that caster can see the creature? Is a bedsheet actually the best anti-caster item in the game?

I think the problem here is that game has to gamey in some situations to stop silliness - a bedsheet doesn't protect you from spells that target creatures just because the caster can not literally see the creature's skin.

[Contrast]

And that's it. Don't give the DM anything more unless literally required.

The problem with that plan being - the DM is the rules arbiter. They're the one who gets to decide how things work.

Who knows if a goblin is scared of an ogre? The DM does because the DM chooses how the goblin reacts. More to the point you need to tell your DM what you're doing because that could be relevant to the world around you. Does this particular goblin have truesight for some reason? Is there a spellcaster hiding round a corner looking to counterspell anything you cast? Have you just stepped into an antimagic zone? You don't know but your DM does.

Plus this plan doesn't really work because 'make an intelligence saving throw, oh you failed - <thing appears>' is already pretty indicative out of character.

If you don't trust your DM to be an impartial arbiter then really you need a new DM or a different social activity.

[JackPhoenix]

Would Acererak have disadvantage on his attack rolls and attack rolls against him have advantage, if say a tarpaulin was draped over his head? Technically he is immune to the Blinded condition, so, no?

Yes. He's immune to blinded condition, he's not immune to having his LoS broken. Smoke or fog would have the same effect (assuming they are not illusionary, see truesight). Heavy obscurement has the same mechanical effect as being blinded, though it doesn't actually give you the condition, so immunity won't help you.


Likewise, would wrapping yourself in a bedsheet stop him from casting spells at you that require that caster can see the creature? Is a bedsheet actually the best anti-caster item in the game?

Not anymore than wearing clothes does. Mantlet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantlet) of some sort would be effective, though.

[Aimeryan]

Yes. He's immune to blinded condition, he's not immune to having his LoS broken. Smoke or fog would have the same effect (assuming they are not illusionary, see truesight). Heavy obscurement has the same mechanical effect as being blinded, though it doesn't actually give you the condition, so immunity won't help you.

Yes, he would have disadvantage/suffer against advantage, or no, he would not? LoS does not cover that. Actually, I just remembered the 'Unseen Attackers' section on page 194 PHB; the disadvantage/advantage would apply because of that section, anyway.

So, the first effect of Blinded is covered by LoS and the second effect is covered by Unseen Attackers - the condition can be mimicked successfully without suffering the actual condition, eh. I think that is sort of the point we are trying to establish, though - you need not literally suffer from the condition in order to suffer from the same effects of having that condition.



Not anymore than wearing clothes does. Mantlet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantlet) of some sort would be effective, though.

Yeah, I was basically referring to the game using worn/held objects as being part of the creature and not blocking line of sight to (and therefore, from?) the creature. Weirdly, this would mean that a blindfold would be ineffectual, unless the item was specifically stated as applying the Blinded condition when worn.

Wonder if they didn't include a tower shield in this edition to avoid the 3.5e problems it had.

[Segev]

"It doesn't say it can inflict conditions, so it can't do anything like a condition" means that a silent image of a fog bank can't conceal anything from anybody's sight, because that's "just like blindness!"

The spell doesn't say it inflicts conditions, no. However, the DM can choose to use conditions to model what it's doing if he finds that easier than ad hoc ruling some specific behavioral restrictions.

I will note that my own suggestions on how to run it are designed to remove as much need to adjudicate how somebody would act "if it was real" despite the controlling player (often the DM) knowing it isn't real, but that they also don't explicitly call out applying statuses.

It boils down to any effort to escape the effect resulting in counting as an attempted Investigation check, whether you do the more difficult (and better for the caster) thing of recasting the bonus as the Int+Inv rather than whatever you told the character he was rolling, or you just let them roll whatever they think they're rolling and compare that to the DC. Anything that doesn't qualify as spending the action trying to escape doesn't get such an attempt to see through/escape the illusion, and also doesn't escape the illusion.

Using the cage example, if the character's player says they try to walk through the bars and attack somebody, it's clear that the player knows it's not real...but I still ask how his character is doing so when his character believes there are bars in the way. Anything he says that would amount to legitimately trying to escape is an action; anything that operates on the metaknowledge of the illusion's unreality automatically fails, but leaves an action open if he didn't actually name an action.

[Aquillion]

How would you rule the following scenarios? And do you have other suggestions for illusions?

The target catches on fire: Is the target distracted somehow? Penalty to attack rolls, AC or concentration?

This is a DM call which I would make on an individual basis based on the mindset of the monster and how they react to being on fire - basically, the question is "when they believe they're on fire, do they flinch?" A hardened warrior might not, whereas a wild animal probably will.

Remember that the distraction of real fire is also up to a DM call. It's fair to say that illusionary fire should be similarly distracting to those who believe it, but (like real fire) it is not guaranteed.

That said, "give a creature disadvantage and 1d6 damage a turn in return for your concentration" is not a very big deal for a 2nd level spell (compare Heat Metal), so I would lean towards allowing this one.


The target sees a big bad enemy creature or frightening entity: Will the target attempt to attack that target instead of other creatures? Or maybe run away from it as if it was affected by a fear spell?
Entirely down to the NPC's reaction, so it will vary on a case by case basis. It would depend on a number of factors, including the mindset of the NPC and how they feel about the creature used as an illusion; I would also take the player's description into account (if the monster is described as particularly scary, say.)

And of course what's happening nearby matters - if the target sees their buddy about to die, they might ignore the big hulking illusionary brute to deal with that.


The target thinks its getting choked by an iron ring around its neck: Will the creature spend its action trying to remove it? Can the creature actually suffocate and die?
The creature cannot suffocate and die as a result of an illusion. Whether it struggles to remove it is up to the creature's own decisions - I imagine many targets will, but (for example) if it is being attacked or sees someone it cares about endangered, it might prioritize that above the choking.

(Well, if it dies to the psychic damage, I'd probably describe that as it choking and dying psychosomatically. But that's the only way it could actually "choke to death" on the spell, since that's the limits of the psychosomatic damage it inflicts.)


The creature hears a loud dissonant sound: Is the creature deafened while affected?
The sound does not actually deafen them in the sense of damaging their hearing, but it can drown out other sounds, yes.


The creature is engulfed in shadows: Is the creature blinded while affected?It is effectively blind, yes. (Look at it this way - if a player dropped an illusionary wall in front of a monster, would you argue it can see through it? "Illusionary fog" works like normal fog does.)

Regarding balance concerns about these, remember that Hold Person and Blindness/Deafness are the same level as this spell and can do all these things. Phantasmal Force has some advantages over them (more versatile, targets a traditionally weak save / skill check, does a tiny amount of damage), but it also has several disadvantages:


It is far less reliable than Hold Person at outright locking down a combatant
It has much more restrictive targeting than Blindness/Deafness (no effect on undead / constructs.)
It require concentration, while Blindness/Deafness does not (which is a really big deal and makes Blindness/Deafness better at higher levels.)
No upcasting, whereas all the spells competing with it can upcast very effectively.


If you're just dropping a blinding darkness or deafening noise on every enemy you cast it on, you would be better off using Blindness/Deafness instead so you're not wasting your concentration. If you're trying to use it to shut down enemies entirely, Hold Person might be better, since you're less reliant on the DM playing along each time.

(You can also compare it to Heat Metal for inflicting damage while imposing disadvantage, but those spells are so dissimilar that it's a bit trickier, especially regarding their respective targeting restrictions - still, it's pretty clear Heat Metal has a ton of advantages, including a "heads I win / tails you lose" save and much higher damage.)

Phantasmal Force's power is that it can create a wide range of illusionary effects, which can be used to influence your opponent's actions or put them at a disadvantage in various ways; its drawback is that it is generally weaker at any one application than other spells of its level. Every single trick you proposed using it for could (generally) be accomplished better using something more specific.


It might be useful to consider the spell being used against a PC. If as a player you were told your character suddenly is choked by a ring, would you spend several actions fruitlessly trying to get rid of it because it just sounds like a reasonable thing to do? If so, is that a fair payoff for a 2nd-level spell?As mentioned, Hold Person is second level, so - while it always depends on NPC reaction and is therefore not as reliable - incapacitating someone briefly in exchange for concentration is an entirely reasonable payoff for Phantasmal Force.

I wouldn't even consider Hold Person a high-powered spell in 5e (it's available to Clerics, who generally get weaker offensive / control options), so it's fine for Phantasmal Force to be a little bit stronger.

I feel that people are overly-harsh in judging Phantasmal Force because they don't like the "feels too clever / feels like they're getting away with something" aspect of it. But remember, at the end of the day, you're devoting an action and then your concentration to impairing and slightly damaging a single monster, with significant targeting restrictions. Even just "the monster is totally incapacitated for the duration, aside from making checks to realize it's an illusion" wouldn't be overpowered. In fact, if it was written that way I think the spell would be totally uncontroversial. Consider this spell:


Phantasmal Binding

Level: 2
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fleece)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Choose a creature you can see within range, excluding Constructs, Undead, and creatures with truesight. The target must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw or be dazzled by illusions that only they can see, effectively paralyzed for the duration. At the end of each of its turns, the target can make an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your save DC to escape. On a success, the spell ends on the target. On each failure, the target takes 1d6 psychic damage from the binding restraints.

It is marginally better than Hold Person, but given that Hold Person is accessible to far more classes (including ones that generally get weaker spells to compensate for stronger class features), I think that that's fair. And the difference is really marginal - 1d6 damage isn't going to change much, while the targeting restrictions are roughly comparable.

Phantasmal Force is slightly different in practice (it can be used for clever tricks to manipulate an enemy's actions, but it also isn't as reliable at just shutting someone down on a failed save.) Still, the vast majority of time that spell is the "maximalist" interpretation of what Phantasmal Force does, and it's... not that overwhelming? Honestly many people are likely to choose Blindness / Deafness later on because they need their concentration elsewhere; most builds I know that use Phantasmal Force end up making that switch eventually.

The big difference is that Phantasmal Force is worded in a way that lets players feel clever (which is a good thing), and that in turn makes some people get annoyed at the sense that people are "getting away" with something. But in my opinion the game should be designed to give people the feeling that they're being clever - and I think that Phantasmal Force is cleverly designed in a way where even the most maximally-permissive interpretations are generally not going to actually be that unbalancing.

[JackPhoenix]

So, the first effect of Blinded is covered by LoS and the second effect is covered by Unseen Attackers - the condition can be mimicked successfully without suffering the actual condition, eh. I think that is sort of the point we are trying to establish, though - you need not literally suffer from the condition in order to suffer from the same effects of having that condition.

Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying. If you somehow managed to put a sack over Acererak's head, he would be unable to see anything outside it... i.e. he would fail any check that would require him to see, get the disadvantage/advantage, just like with blinded condition, wouldn't be able to make opportunity attacks or target creatures with spells that require him to see the target. He wouldn't be blind, so he would be able to see the inside of the sack. Or a blindfold, or whatever... lack of light isn't problem for him (truesight).


"It doesn't say it can inflict conditions, so it can't do anything like a condition" means that a silent image of a fog bank can't conceal anything from anybody's sight, because that's "just like blindness!"

It's not. That's the whole point: something blocking your LoS... whether it's solid opaque object, darkness or fog, real or illusionary.... is not the same as actually causing the blinded condition, even if the mechanical effects are the same.


Using the cage example, if the character's player says they try to walk through the bars and attack somebody, it's clear that the player knows it's not real...but I still ask how his character is doing so when his character believes there are bars in the way. Anything he says that would amount to legitimately trying to escape is an action; anything that operates on the metaknowledge of the illusion's unreality automatically fails, but leaves an action open if he didn't actually name an action.

See, that's why you make the cage red-hot, or something, to discourage the creature from trying to touch the bars. If it does, it can get away, because there's no physical obstacle, but most creatures would avoid something that looks red-hot and radiates heat when they get near. However, in this case, you should avoid making the cage in a way that would cause the creature damage without trying to escape: suddenly "burn your hands trying to bend red-hot metal bars to escape" may be prefered to "sit here being slowly cooked alive". It's not 100% effective disable... the creature may still make ranged attacks if it has them.... but again, having that option may mean the target will switch to less effective means of attack.

The game assume metagaming isn't a problem when illusions are involved.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I feel that people are overly-harsh in judging Phantasmal Force because they don't like the "feels too clever / feels like they're getting away with something" aspect of it.

I think some people are aware they're putting too clever utility into it, and that's why we're also seeing extra drawbacks (free "saves").


Consider this spell:

It is marginally better than Hold Person, but given that Hold Person is accessible to far more classes (including ones that generally get weaker spells to compensate for stronger class features), I think that that's fair.

Even if it's worse than Hold Person, even if it's arbitrarily capped at causing one condition at a time (because evidently we've all got a cleverness limit somewhere), it's still got that and everything else it can do in and out of combat in terms of deception, misdirection, intimidation, dropping people down canyons etc. People are looking at these two things PF could be allowed to do out of two hundred and saying it's not notably better than the things that do that and nothing else.

[Sorinth]

I think some people are aware they're putting too clever utility into it, and that's why we're also seeing extra drawbacks (free "saves").

Although part of the free/multiple save is balance, I would disagree that it has anything to do with being clever. A clever illusion is one that the target doesn't even get a check for but still forces the target to waste actions.

For example, suppose the target is after a specific object. A PF that summons a creature who grabs that object and starts running away might get the target to go chasing the PF, if the target Dashes each round to try and catch up they could waste numerous rounds without ever getting a save to disbelieve the illusion.

It's also fitting with the fact that it is after all an illusion. Any time PF forces the target to rationalize an illogical outcome the target should get a save.

[redwizard007]

Although part of the free/multiple save is balance, I would disagree that it has anything to do with being clever. A clever illusion is one that the target doesn't even get a check for but still forces the target to waste actions.

For example, suppose the target is after a specific object. A PF that summons a creature who grabs that object and starts running away might get the target to go chasing the PF, if the target Dashes each round to try and catch up they could waste numerous rounds without ever getting a save to disbelieve the illusion.

It's also fitting with the fact that it is after all an illusion. Any time PF forces the target to rationalize an illogical outcome the target should get a save.

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph here. It would make perfect sense if the spell didn't specifically spell out that the target rationalizes as part of the spell effect.

[Segev]

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph here. It would make perfect sense if the spell didn't specifically spell out that the target rationalizes as part of the spell effect.

Especially since the verb "rationalize" means that the creature has come up with an explanation that makes sense - i.e. seems logical - to said creature's own mind. It might make no sense to anybody else, but it does to that creature.

[Evaar]

I want to nail down the movement aspect of the spell. I’m firmly in the camp that the illusion moves as necessary.

The illusion doesn’t target a spot within range. It targets a creature.

The spell states it can deal damage to a creature if the nature of the illusion would cause them harm. It gives the example of a creature attacking the target. It does not state that the target can negate this damage by moving away from the creature, since the creature could not follow. Instead, it says it will rationalize the effects of the spell so as to reinforce the reality of the illusion - like if you have an angry smashbear attacking it and the target runs from the smashbear but keeps taking damage, it would probably rationalize that it’s being chased by the smashbear. Otherwise, there’s another condition for negating the spell entirely that is not included in the spell description.

A cage on the target’s head doesn’t remain floating in empty air if the creature moves 15 feet from it.

An illusory archer doesn’t fire arrows that vanish ineffectively into thin air because they are sent outside of a 10 foot cube surrounding the illusion.

The reason that it lacks the movement language that was included in Major Image and Silent Image is not because it doesn’t move, but because it doesn’t target a spot within range. It never requires being anchored to a particular location, so it doesn’t require the additional exception allowing it to be moved.

The 10 foot cube is meant to limit the type of illusion you create. You can make a door, but not a tower. You can make an ogre, but not a tarrasque.

[Crgaston]

I want to nail down the movement aspect of the spell. I’m firmly in the camp that the illusion moves as necessary.

The illusion doesn’t target a spot within range. It targets a creature.

The spell states it can deal damage to a creature if the nature of the illusion would cause them harm. It gives the example of a creature attacking the target. It does not state that the target can negate this damage by moving away from the creature, since the creature could not follow. Instead, it says it will rationalize the effects of the spell so as to reinforce the reality of the illusion - like if you have an angry smashbear attacking it and the target runs from the smashbear but keeps taking damage, it would probably rationalize that it’s being chased by the smashbear. Otherwise, there’s another condition for negating the spell entirely that is not included in the spell description.

A cage on the target’s head doesn’t remain floating in empty air if the creature moves 15 feet from it.

An illusory archer doesn’t fire arrows that vanish ineffectively into thin air because they are sent outside of a 10 foot cube surrounding the illusion.

The reason that it lacks the movement language that was included in Major Image and Silent Image is not because it doesn’t move, but because it doesn’t target a spot within range. It never requires being anchored to a particular location, so it doesn’t require the additional exception allowing it to be moved.

The 10 foot cube is meant to limit the type of illusion you create. You can make a door, but not a tower. You can make an ogre, but not a tarrasque.

Well stated, and I concur.

[Sorinth]

I disagree strongly with your last paragraph here. It would make perfect sense if the spell didn't specifically spell out that the target rationalizes as part of the spell effect.

If the spell didn't force the target to rationalize it, then you would automatically succeed at detecting that it was an illusion whenever interacting with it physically just like Minor Illusion, Silent Image, etc... It's why you have to actually make a check in the first place.

If the spell rationalizes everything away without requiring a check then logically how would it ever be possible for an investigation check to succeed? Ask yourself what is the character actually doing when he takes an action to investigate whether it's an illusion?

[Sorinth]

I want to nail down the movement aspect of the spell. I’m firmly in the camp that the illusion moves as necessary.

The illusion doesn’t target a spot within range. It targets a creature.

The spell states it can deal damage to a creature if the nature of the illusion would cause them harm. It gives the example of a creature attacking the target. It does not state that the target can negate this damage by moving away from the creature, since the creature could not follow. Instead, it says it will rationalize the effects of the spell so as to reinforce the reality of the illusion - like if you have an angry smashbear attacking it and the target runs from the smashbear but keeps taking damage, it would probably rationalize that it’s being chased by the smashbear. Otherwise, there’s another condition for negating the spell entirely that is not included in the spell description.

A cage on the target’s head doesn’t remain floating in empty air if the creature moves 15 feet from it.

An illusory archer doesn’t fire arrows that vanish ineffectively into thin air because they are sent outside of a 10 foot cube surrounding the illusion.

The reason that it lacks the movement language that was included in Major Image and Silent Image is not because it doesn’t move, but because it doesn’t target a spot within range. It never requires being anchored to a particular location, so it doesn’t require the additional exception allowing it to be moved.

The 10 foot cube is meant to limit the type of illusion you create. You can make a door, but not a tower. You can make an ogre, but not a tarrasque.

When I first read the spell I thought it was a fixed area, but thanks to this thread I now agree with you're assement. The illusion has a max size, but can be move anywhere with the target.

The one caveat being I think you might have to declare what you want to happen when you cast the spell and then can't change it. So if you created a fixed object without intending it to move, you can't move it in later rounds.

[Aquillion]

I think some people are aware they're putting too clever utility into it, and that's why we're also seeing extra drawbacks (free "saves").There's no such thing as too clever! For the sort of people the spell is aimed at, the game is all about being clever. It's a Johnny spell, in MTG terms.

I feel like your objections aren't about balance (because the spell is certainly balanced under all the interpretations here - I'm not actually seeing any stories about it wrecking games), but about a desire to have the game be simpler, more straightforward. If you think people being too clever about a spell is a bad thing, obviously you're going to have complaints about illusions in general and this one in particular, but I don't think that's a problem with Phantasmal Force or the way people use it - I think that that's just having a preference for one style of play over another.

And there's nothing wrong with that! Some people like games that involve more clever trickery, while some people like more mechanical rigor. Just, you know, recognize that that's the real dispute, not an argument over how Phantasmal Force should be played. Not every spell is for everyone; not every spell is even for every table - there are definitely some tables where the entire Illusion school is better avoided. It's fine to just say that Phantasmal Force fits into that and to stop trying to square-peg, round-hole it into your style of play.


Even if it's worse than Hold Person, even if it's arbitrarily capped at causing one condition at a time (because evidently we've all got a cleverness limit somewhere), it's still got that and everything else it can do in and out of combat in terms of deception, misdirection, intimidation, dropping people down canyons etc. People are looking at these two things PF could be allowed to do out of two hundred and saying it's not notably better than the things that do that and nothing else.It does all that stuff! Situationally, with the right setup, when everything works perfectly, it can feel like one of the strongest second-level spells. But the thing about cleverness is that it doesn't always work. If the DM considers the situation and decides a particular application goes awry, it can accomplish nothing beyond wasting a second-level slot. (I think there are some "minimal" applications that always work, like blinding fog, but those are weaker than comparable second-level spells, so if you're frequently forced to use it like that, you'd be better choosing another spell.)

Hold Person isn't clever. Hold Person just works, every time, provided the target fails its save, with no need for complex adjudication and no DM calls on how the monster reacts to the player's plan. As long as the monster fails its save, they're out until they succeed, guaranteed, and nobody can question that that's what the spell was intended to do. If you prefer that kind of spell, it's fine? But all I'm getting out of your arguments is that you dislike the style of play that Phantasmal Force was made for, and are trying to parley that dislike into a mechanical interpretation of the rules that makes that style of play go away.

You don't need to do that. Just say "no illusion subschool at my table", and play with groups that prefer more mechanically-rigorous stuff.

Now, there's no such thing as too clever, but there is balance. I think I've shown that it's balanced - it can do a ton of stuff, yes; in terms of raw potential, it's one of the most versatile spells of its level. But that comes at a severe cost - you can't control how monsters will react, so it's less reliable at the vast majority of those applications than just about any other spell of its level, too (and the few things it can do reliably, other spells can do better, in exchange for their narrower scope.) If you use it in a reliable way, then it's weak. Otherwise... sometimes you cast it, trying something clever, and all it accomplishes is a DM description of why the target doesn't react the way you want. That's the entire tradeoff the illusions school is based around. If you don't like that, illusions might not be for you?

Like... if you go into debates about spell selection for Bards, I think you'll find people are pretty closely divided between Phantasmal Force, Suggestion, and Blindness / Deafness, even when talking about very permissive DMs.

[DM7581]

This was the most recent thread on the topic, so I wanted to pose a situation and see how you all might handle it.

Phantasmal Force is used to create an iron-enclosed box, filling gradually with acid.

The iron enclosed box would hypothetically give the blinded condition (they cannot see beyond a solid object/wall). Nor can they target any creature with an attack since they technically cannot see them through the iron encasement.

It would also make them stationary, though not restrained, but still no escaping the space.

It also deals the 1d6 damage per round perceived as acid damage. Any damage type could do here I suppose.

While the creature is stuck, players can finish off any other threats and then coordinate and attack it (with advantage due to blindness?). I think I ruled attacking it allowed it to investigate the phantasm, but at that point, it was too late to matter.

Happened in my game as a go-to use of the spell. What are your thoughts on this application and how a mundane large or smaller creature might foil it?

[Segev]

This was the most recent thread on the topic, so I wanted to pose a situation and see how you all might handle it.

Phantasmal Force is used to create an iron-enclosed box, filling gradually with acid.

The iron enclosed box would hypothetically give the blinded condition (they cannot see beyond a solid object/wall). Nor can they target any creature with an attack since they technically cannot see them through the iron encasement.

It would also make them stationary, though not restrained, but still no escaping the space.

It also deals the 1d6 damage per round perceived as acid damage. Any damage type could do here I suppose.

While the creature is stuck, players can finish off any other threats and then coordinate and attack it (with advantage due to blindness?). I think I ruled attacking it allowed it to investigate the phantasm, but at that point, it was too late to matter.

Happened in my game as a go-to use of the spell. What are your thoughts on this application and how a mundane large or smaller creature might foil it?

The way I'd handle it is to have them do whatever they want to try to break out of it. If I'm the DM, I make sure I know the player characters' Int(Investigation) before hand, if I know I'm using this spell. I ask them to make an appropriate roll, and either (if I can pull off figuring out their raw roll) use their roll plus the Int(Investigate) modifier instead, or I make my own secret roll if I can't figure out their raw roll.

If they beat the DC with my hidden check, then whatever they tried works OR fails in a way that reveals the illusion, revealing the illusion either way. If they fail, I tell them their attempt failed (as if they didn't hit the DC on whatever they were trying to do).

That's how I'd do it, anyway.

[cZak]

There have been many posts regarding this spell & a lot of discussion/arguments for it's effects...

A couple points on the spell:
- There is no limitation of the spell being confined to a specific area
It has a range of 60' which identifies how far away the target of the spell can be from the caster. The illusion is in the mind of the target, so if within the design of the effect, it stays with the target

- the condition for escaping the spell is a Intelligence: Investigation check
if the target wants to move thru fire bars, escape a thorny vine, roll on the ground to douse flames enveloping them; the check is Intelligence: Investigation. Failure means the target does not move, douse the flames, or escape the thorny vine

[Aquillion]

This was the most recent thread on the topic, so I wanted to pose a situation and see how you all might handle it.

Phantasmal Force is used to create an iron-enclosed box, filling gradually with acid.

The iron enclosed box would hypothetically give the blinded condition (they cannot see beyond a solid object/wall). Nor can they target any creature with an attack since they technically cannot see them through the iron encasement.

It would also make them stationary, though not restrained, but still no escaping the space.

It also deals the 1d6 damage per round perceived as acid damage. Any damage type could do here I suppose.

While the creature is stuck, players can finish off any other threats and then coordinate and attack it (with advantage due to blindness?). I think I ruled attacking it allowed it to investigate the phantasm, but at that point, it was too late to matter.

Happened in my game as a go-to use of the spell. What are your thoughts on this application and how a mundane large or smaller creature might foil it?
1. They could still escape if they tried to do so. Their staying in place depends on them choosing not to try to leave the box.

2. They get an investigation check each round.

Even with absolutely all of that, compare to Hold Person. The targeting restrictions are slightly different, it does a bit of damage, it doesn't restrain, and the spell is available to fewer classes (so it makes sense for it to be slightly better - generally non-support spells available to Clerics are a bit worse), but overall, it's pretty similar; with concentration, lock a target down until they pass a roll they can make every turn.

Seriously, explain why you're upset about that box and not about Hold Person, because I'm not seeing it. It seems like a "this player is being too smart and must therefore be stopped" reaction, not something actually based on any valid balance concerns - the effect you're describing is similar to comparable second-level spells. (Heck, Hideous Laughter does most of the important stuff here as a first level spell.)

[DM7581]

1. They could still escape if they tried to do so. Their staying in place depends on them choosing not to try to leave the box.

2. They get an investigation check each round.

Even with absolutely all of that, compare to Hold Person. The targeting restrictions are slightly different, it does a bit of damage, it doesn't restrain, and the spell is available to fewer classes (so it makes sense for it to be slightly better - generally non-support spells available to Clerics are a bit worse), but overall, it's pretty similar; with concentration, lock a target down until they pass a roll they can make every turn.

Seriously, explain why you're upset about that box and not about Hold Person, because I'm not seeing it. It seems like a "this player is being too smart and must therefore be stopped" reaction, not something actually based on any valid balance concerns - the effect you're describing is similar to comparable second-level spells. (Heck, Hideous Laughter does most of the important stuff here as a first level spell.)

I just felt that spamming the spell repeatedly, especially to undermine certain encounters seemed suspicious for such a low level spell.

Being able to immobilize and damage the target while effectively taking them out of the current combat until the party was ready to jump them (rendering the target effectively blinded to them in the process) got old real quick. I found other ways to challenge them, but felt the acid steel cage trick was very specific an application and not sure if the spell was meant to be this versatile.

Their save DCs were very high too (20 if I recall) and not many base creatures have any bonuses in investigate.

[Segev]

DC 20 saves imply pretty high level. Monsters at that level worth spending concentration to lock down should be able to make that DC reasonably often.

[Chronos]

Any enemy put in that situation will try to escape. Most enemies, if trying to escape, will start their attempt by getting a good look at the box, to see if there's a weaker spot to attack, or a lock to pick, or whatever. That's certainly an investigation check. Even if they don't do anything like that and just start blindly smashing at it, that might also be ruled to be an investigation check. They might still stay stuck in it for a while, if they're stupid or unlucky, but at the end of the day, you're still using a spell slot, an action, and your concentration to take one creature out of the fight and do a trivial amount of damage to it. That's what spells do.

[Aquillion]

I just felt that spamming the spell repeatedly, especially to undermine certain encounters seemed suspicious for such a low level spell.

Being able to immobilize and damage the target while effectively taking them out of the current combat until the party was ready to jump them (rendering the target effectively blinded to them in the process) got old real quick. I found other ways to challenge them, but felt the acid steel cage trick was very specific an application and not sure if the spell was meant to be this versatile.

Their save DCs were very high too (20 if I recall) and not many base creatures have any bonuses in investigate.At the end of the day, though, they're spending an action, a spell slot, their concentration, and risking a saving throw to sort-of lock down one enemy creature. That's pretty closely in line with comparable 2nd level crowd control spells. 5e is very focused on action economy, so 5v1 fights depend on stuff like Lair / Legendary actions and Legendary Saves to keep things fair.

On top of that, Undead, Constructs, and anything with Truesight is immune (which covers many things you'd want to use as big boss enemies to begin with.)

Like... it's a bit better than Hideous Laughter (on account of being a level higher), but not by a huge amount? The important bit of "with a save and concentration, take someone out of the fight until they pass a roll" is still there. I feel like the spell was designed and balanced around the idea that it will usually remove its victim from combat if deployed well.

You might encourage players to be more creative with it just because always doing the same thing is boring, but I don't see it as a balance issue when you can do much of what it accomplishes a level earlier, can do similar things with Hold Person, Suggestion, or Blindness / Deafness (less hard control, but no concentration)... and can take out an entire group a level later with Hypnotic Pattern. It does a bit of damage, but a tiny bit of damage, and has some unique drawbacks and limitations of its own.

[Segev]

Let me tell you, hideous laughter is really annoying as a DM. NOTHING is immune to the incapacitation effect (unless it falls in the Int 3- category that the spell itself introduces). So it's a very good go-to for the party wizard to take down one target and keep it down.

[Callak_Remier]

There have been many posts regarding this spell & a lot of discussion/arguments for it's effects...

A couple points on the spell:
- There is no limitation of the spell being confined to a specific area
It has a range of 60' which identifies how far away the target of the spell can be from the caster. The illusion is in the mind of the target, so if within the design of the effect, it stays with the target

- the condition for escaping the spell is a Intelligence: Investigation check
if the target wants to move thru fire bars, escape a thorny vine, roll on the ground to douse flames enveloping them; the check is Intelligence: Investigation. Failure means the target does not move, douse the flames, or escape the thorny vine

Incorrect.
The Range is only important to the spell when determining the target and the initial spawn location of the Phantasm.

At no point in the spell description does it say the illusion *moves* . Therefore it doesn't.

The spell is cast and the illusion formed in those 6 seconds and you have no more input after that fact.


(* note that I am referring to moving from the combat square it was originally cast in/created in, not to be confused with the motion expected of the object. )

It's a fine line. Since the spell doesn't impose any conditions, if you can craft an illusion that would impose inaction as the victims best course of action you have created the most effective use for it.

But the moment you put a creature in a life or death situation and they are free to move they will move, causing an investigation check.

[DM7581]

Fair enough on my end. I did let the spell act as discussed, just thought it was very powerful for the level it was... and the conditions of the phantasm were very detailed (and included immobilization and effective blindness in addition to the regular effects), which I thought may have been outside the realm of what was possible for the spell. If other DMs would have ruled the same way, I'm good. Thought I missed something in the spell or in the way "phantasms" worked in general.

[HPisBS]

At no point in the spell description does it say the illusion *moves* . Therefore it doesn't.

At no point in the spell description does it say the illusion is *immobile*. Therefore, it isn't.


Edit: Cheekiness aside, what it does say is that "You craft an illusion that takes root in the mind of a creature. Contrast that to virtually every other illusion saying some version of "you create an illusion at a spot within range."

[Callak_Remier]

I want to nail down the movement aspect of the spell. I’m firmly in the camp that the illusion moves as necessary.


Where does it say in the spell description that the illusion moves ? I'd doesn't therefore the illusion doesn't *move. Spells do exactly what they say they do nothing more.
Your create the illusion in a square and that's the last input you have on the spell.

(*Note that I am referring to moving from a square and not motion that would be expected from the object or creature.)



The illusion doesn’t target a spot within range. It targets a creature.

A cage on the target’s head doesn’t remain floating in empty air if the creature moves 15 feet from it.

No the creature would rationalize that it pulled it off its head and the pieces lay scattered about where it can't see. It would continue to investigate until it discovered the illusion.

[Segev]

Where does it say in the spell description that the illusion moves ? I'd doesn't therefore the illusion doesn't *move. Spells do exactly what they say they do nothing more.
Your create the illusion in a square and that's the last input you have on the spell.

(*Note that I am referring to moving from a square and not motion that would be expected from the object or creature.)Eh... you could extend this logic to say that summoned creatures don't move, either. After all, the spell doesn't say they do. If you point out that the creatures themselves have movement rates, I can point out that the illusion of a creature can be expected to move, too.

I agree that the illusionist has little to no control over it, though, despite maintaining concentration: he can't see, hear, feel, or smell it, so he doesn't know what it's doing.

Though I could also see it ruled that the illusion only does what the illusionist imagines it to, even though the illusionist can't see/hear/etc. it. Because the illusionist is concentrating on it, after all.

It can be ruled a number of ways, in the end, and they all wind up making sense.

[Chronos]

Where the illusion actually is is in the mind of the target, and that can certainly move.

Where the target thinks the illusion is depends on what the target thinks about the illusion.

That's why I rule that it moves in the ways that the target would expect, without the caster being able to control what that is.

[Evaar]

See my post on Page 5. It moves.


I want to nail down the movement aspect of the spell. I’m firmly in the camp that the illusion moves as necessary.

The illusion doesn’t target a spot within range. It targets a creature.

The spell states it can deal damage to a creature if the nature of the illusion would cause them harm. It gives the example of a creature attacking the target. It does not state that the target can negate this damage by moving away from the creature, since the creature could not follow. Instead, it says it will rationalize the effects of the spell so as to reinforce the reality of the illusion - like if you have an angry smashbear attacking it and the target runs from the smashbear but keeps taking damage, it would probably rationalize that it’s being chased by the smashbear. Otherwise, there’s another condition for negating the spell entirely that is not included in the spell description.

A cage on the target’s head doesn’t remain floating in empty air if the creature moves 15 feet from it.

An illusory archer doesn’t fire arrows that vanish ineffectively into thin air because they are sent outside of a 10 foot cube surrounding the illusion.

The reason that it lacks the movement language that was included in Major Image and Silent Image is not because it doesn’t move, but because it doesn’t target a spot within range. It never requires being anchored to a particular location, so it doesn’t require the additional exception allowing it to be moved.

The 10 foot cube is meant to limit the type of illusion you create. You can make a door, but not a tower. You can make an ogre, but not a tarrasque.