D&D 5E How does the Phantasmal Force spell work correctly?

[Undrhil]

I don't see how you would ever 'not be allowed to investigate'. I can see situations where a creature may decide not to investigate. The flip side of that is that there are creatures who will simply brute force their way out, and the illusion cannot stop them from doing that.

Actually, it can. The only way for the spell to end is for the target to make the original INT saving throw, or to succeed on a Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine it isn't real.

If a the spell makes the target think their hands are bound with chains and they stretch their arms apart, the creature sees both of his hands moving the same way or not moving at all, even though *everyone else sees it spreading its arms wide*. If you summon a box over its head, it is blinded. It can't simply lift the box off of its head, possibly because the box has sealed around its head? Possibly because whenever he tries to lift it, his hands slip off?

That's what the spell means by the target rationalizing any inconsistencies: the spell is still effecting it, even though the target thinks it's done something that should have stopped it. Therefore, it comes up with some reason for why it is still being affected. That's why the example given of a bridge and the creature falling anyway, the creature thinks they were pushed or slipped ... *not that the bridge broke or they passed through it*.

Now, you can rule that each of those attempts to remove it are INT (investigation) checks, but it really doesn't have any reason to investigate immediately. I mean, it's facing a wizard, why wouldn't a wizard be able to do those things to it?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Actually, it can. The only way for the spell to end is for the target to make the original INT saving throw, or to succeed on a Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine it isn't real.

If a the spell makes the target think their hands are bound with chains and they stretch their arms apart, the creature sees both of his hands moving the same way or not moving at all, even though *everyone else sees it spreading its arms wide*. If you summon a box over its head, it is blinded. It can't simply lift the box off of its head, possibly because the box has sealed around its head? Possibly because whenever he tries to lift it, his hands slip off?

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the spell far too good for a 2nd level spell.

That's what the spell means by the target rationalizing any inconsistencies: the spell is still effecting it, even though the target thinks it's done something that should have stopped it. Therefore, it comes up with some reason for why it is still being affected. That's why the example given of a bridge and the creature falling anyway, the creature thinks they were pushes or slipped ... *not that the bridge broke or they passed through it*.

So you're taking the lack of a specific example to mean that a 2nd level spell is significantly more powerful than any other 2nd level save-or-suck spell?

 

[Undrhil]

There is no problem with this "interpretation" since it's literally what the spell description says. If you don't like it, you can houserule it otherwise.

Also, the example of the bridge is pretty specific. It doesn't say the spell ends when the creature falls, does it? No. Because the creature didn't do an Investigation check to end the spell.

 

[ThePolarBear]

• The most important point is that it is not possible to physically control a creature. If you create chains to bind it, these might even move a bit with the target. But the moment, the target moves away from the object, its arms/legs would simply go through the illusion. The creature would rationalize it in some way (as the spell description says), but it would be free though. Instead, you could try to affect the creature's motivation to do something: E.g. you could create a cage of fire. The creature might feel the heat an decide not to touch it. Or you could create something that forces the target to go prone at its own will (e.g. a poisonous fog at a specific height, so that the could duck).
• I believe a good way to consider, whether a specific object created with Phantasmal Force would be viable or not, is to apply the following rule of thumb:
  • "Is the object supposed to physically affect a creature?" If yes, the effect is not possible.
  • "Is the object supposed to only affect the creature's motivation to do something?" If yes, than it is absolutely viable and works as the spell is intended to work.

I thought about it a bit. I don't think that i like this conclusions. I agree with them, i just do not like the wording. Can't really find a better way to put them, tho. It's mostly the "physically affect" that doesn't ring 100% correct. Also, it's not really only about objects, creatures for example can't trample the target, no matter how much one likes creating illusions of bulls when the target is dressed in red. Possibly "The illusion requires physical interaction to obtain the desired effect (manacles co restrict movement)" and on the other side "the illusion lures the target to interact with it physically (a bridge to be stepped on)"? I like the "motivate" part a lot... again, do not really like the first.

(sorry for the freeform "stream of consciousness". Not really intended but wrote ideas on the go and it's hopefully readable and understandable)

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the spell far too good for a 2nd level spell.

But the spell can't change. You can't douse illusionary flames - that's the source of the inconsistency and rationalizing it means explaining why it was not doused, not "that it was doused". With chains you clearly should not have been able to move because that's what chains normally do. Rationalizing with "well those where broken" or "well those broke" it's not rationalizing. There would have been no inconsistency and there would be no spell remaining. At that point it would have been better to stop the spellcaster from casting in the first place, prehaps explaining why that would not work. In the end combat is not really in turns and explaining that "You see, the creature is constantly moving. It's already dodging the attacks of your companions, sidestepping, turing around to check the surroundings. There's no way that the creature won't realize that movement is not really impeded and rationalize as "chains are broken", nullifying the intended effect of your spell. If i can suggest, try to envision something that instead of blocking physically tries to lure the creature to act in a way you want. Or prehaps go for the good old scary and angry bear that claws its way in the target flesh."

So you're taking the lack of a specific example to mean that a 2nd level spell is significantly more powerful than any other 2nd level save-or-suck spell?

I do not really think it's so. Hold Person is limited in type but completely shuts that target down in a way that Phantasmal Force simply can't do, giving a lot of advantages. Suggestion duration is incredible and only has a single save, even if it's limited by language and the fact that is a charming effect. Blindness/Deafness does not require concentration and is only Verbal, even if it's half the range. Some of those spells scale with level, too. The short end of the stick is Crown of Madness, even if it has double the range. I dunno, never really liked the spell at all... it seems like Witch Bolt of the 2nd level. I might just be biased however.

The fact that there's no save each turn is balance with the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean much. As i read it any real attempt to interact with the illusion that causes possible "situations" like the box on the head are actions spent to investigate the illusion. This might leave a creature still partially functional from round 1. Blindness always has a round at least of full efficacy.

PF is way more flexible but also way more DM dependant that any of the other spells. It's strong, no doubt, but if i want to shout down a humanoid Hold Person is better, against a caster Blindness can do wonders, Suggestions is all around useful, Crown of Madness suc... err... has double the range (i guess?) and if there's a very big humanoid it can be prehaps be worth considering (i guess?)

 

[lkwpeter]

If you allow status effects, I would be sure to also allow the target its check each round.

That really is all. I understand people finding much joy in coming up with clever illusions that doesn't make the target go investigate, but in a combat context that's just broken.

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the spell far too good for a 2nd level spell.

I believe, that's actually the same point as discussing the meaning of "reasonable" in the suggestion spell. The illusion of PF must be backed up by evidence. If a player is able to create such an illusion, there is absolutely no reason to ask for an investigation check. The whole question about that has to be considered from the target's point of view - not from the DM's one! In my view, this is absolutely intended. A sign for this is the "rationalize" part of the spell description that emphasizes that even situational unlogical circumstances will be forgiven, if the initial thought of the effect was plausible.

Furthermore, there are other powerful spells. E.g. think of Hold Person that applies the paralyzed condition on a failed WIS save giving advantage to attacks + auto crit within 5 feet range. And the condition stays as long as the target doesn't make a successful check. Sure, Phantasmal Force is powerful, but it's not overpowered, if used correctly (applying the restrictions mentioned above). And it is only single target + has an inital saving throw.

I thought about it a bit. I don't think that i like this conclusions. I agree with them, i just do not like the wording. Can't really find a better way to put them, tho. It's mostly the "physically affect" that doesn't ring 100% correct. Also, it's not really only about objects, creatures for example can't trample the target, no matter how much one likes creating illusions of bulls when the target is dressed in red. Possibly "The illusion requires physical interaction to obtain the desired effect (manacles co restrict movement)" and on the other side "the illusion lures the target to interact with it physically (a bridge to be stepped on)"? I like the "motivate" part a lot... again, do not really like the first.


(sorry for the freeform "stream of consciousness". Not really intended but wrote ideas on the go and it's hopefully readable and understandable)

No worries, I understand what you mean. English is not my mother language. How do you like the following wording?

Status effects in fights:

• The most important point is that it is not possible to physically control a creature against its will. This especially refers to objects that intend to bind the target directly. E.g. if you create chains to bind a creature, these might even move a bit with the target. But the moment, the target moves away from the object's range, its arms/legs would simply go through the illusion. The creature would rationalize it in some way (as the spell description says), but it would be free though.
• Instead, you could try to affect the creature's motivation to do or omit to do something: E.g. you could create a cage of fire. The creature might feel the heat an decide not to touch it. Or you could create something that forces the target to go prone at its own will (e.g. a poisonous fog at a specific height, so that the could duck).
• Also keep in mind that phantasms created to appear as a creature can attack, but they will not be able to cause status effects. This is because these creatures neither can take special actions nor feats. Moreover, the type of damage they deal is psychical in origin, not physical! The spell description explicitly names types of elemental damage. It would elaborate on them, if thy would be able to trigger status effects.

I you want to consider, whether or not an illusionary effect is viable or not, apply the following rule of thumb:

• "Is the object supposed to directly physically affect the target against its will?" If yes, the effect is not possible.
• "Is the object supposed to only affect the creature's motivation to do or omit to do something?" If yes, than it is absolutely viable and works as the spell is intended to work.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's the downside of using an incredibly potent and versatile spell instead of a spell that has a single and very limited use: hold person. If phantasmal force isn't breakable as I describe, then it's a flat-out better spell in every conceivable way by a massive margin: it targets a resistance most monsters don't have, it can inflict almost any combination of statuses you want, it can affect a much wider range of foes, it can deal damage, it requires an action to break and it has utility applications.

All I am saying is: don't count on others to share your view of the spell. You're inventing ways to get rid of the spell that simply aren't there. Hope it works for your campaign.

As for myself, I read "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." and even if it tries to break away from its chains, it would still not get free unless it makes its Investigation check. No matter what the monster does or tries, in reality that would mean it spends its action to take the Investigation check.

- "I flex my muscles to break the chains!"
- Make an Investigation (Intelligence) check; succeed and you realize the chains weren't real, they were in your mind only. Fail "sorry but you're not strong enough, the chains barely budge".

You see? Even if you say you wave around your arms, perhaps the chains are made out of a strange rubber. "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm."

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the spell far too good for a 2nd level spell.

So you're taking the lack of a specific example to mean that a 2nd level spell is significantly more powerful than any other 2nd level save-or-suck spell?

Our take here, Saeviomagy, is that you'll have to take this up with WotC.

The fact a spell might be overpowered does not mean we get to wholesale invent new drawbacks of the spell. Or rather, you're welcome to, just as long as you don't try to sell your idea as RAW.

 

[lkwpeter]

All I am saying is: don't count on others to share your view of the spell. You're inventing ways to get rid of the spell that simply aren't there. Hope it works for your campaign.

As for myself, I read "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." and even if it tries to break away from its chains, it would still not get free unless it makes its Investigation check. No matter what the monster does or tries, in reality that would mean it spends its action to take the Investigation check.

- "I flex my muscles to break the chains!"
- Make an Investigation (Intelligence) check; succeed and you realize the chains weren't real, they were in your mind only. Fail "sorry but you're not strong enough, the chains barely budge".

You see? Even if you say you wave around your arms, perhaps the chains are made out of a strange rubber. "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm."

In my opinion, trying to get rid of the chains and investigating the spell via an INT (Investigation) check are absolutely two different pair of shoes:

1. Let's regard the example of the bridge given in the rules: The target falls through it. Afterwards 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). If the target knows this place like the back of its hand and might just have been there a few hours ago (when there was no bridge at all), it would surely investigate it via an INT (Investigation) check before stepping on it. So, as a DM, the most important question is when to call for such a check. As I said before, the most logical way would be to ask yourself, if the illusion is backed up with enough evidence to not arouse the target's suspicion.
2. On the other hand, there is nowhere written that the target makes a DEX check or whatever, trying to balance over something that isn't there. And that's actually the point. You can't ask for a STR check, to clarify whether or not the creature successfully frees itself from chains that are not existent. There is simply nothing you could achieve with strength. The only way to get rid of that illusion is an INT (Investigation) check. The rules are very clear about that.

Yes, the illusion can move with the target (Jeremy Crawford). So, you could create manacles around each hand. BUT: You can neither bind the target's hands together nor bind it to a wall/object to physically hinder it from moving.

• To bind the target's hands together you would need to move the hands into a specific position, what is not part of the spell. Even if this would be possible, one hand would go through one of the manacles, if the target moves it.
• To bind a creature to a wall/object (with the intention of physically hinder it from moving), the chains would need hold the target. And that's not possible. You could create a chain of a specific distance for each hand (so you wouldn't have to move hands together). But the moment, the target moves out of the chain's range, the target gets free. The creature would in some way rationalize that, but it would be free, because the object just ended. It's important to notice that There is no check needed, because the target still believes that the chains are real. It's like moving past or falling through the bridge. In addition, it would still have to make an INT (Investigation) check to reveal the spell.

To be honest, I don't see this interpretation to be far away from the example given in the spell's description (and Jeremy Crawford's Tweets). In my view, this is just an analogous application of it.

Furthermore, I can only repeat: Yes, I find this spell flexible. But it's also very well balanced under the discussed circumstances/restrictions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, but I'm taking a ruthlessly utilitarian view on this. You can create a wall of text, but for what purpose?

Can you or can you not accomplish both of the following things simultaneously?
1) thwart, impede or outright shut down the monster
2) while by clever illusion design deny the monster an escape

I am of the position that a level two spell should not and must not be allowed both 1+2.

If the spell only accomplishes 1, it is a variant of hold monster or blindness/deafness. It would be a strong variant of those spells, but not brokenly so.

If the spell only accomplishes 2, it is useless in combat (since even if it can't escape it isn't impeded), but it can still be very useful for a variety of other uses: trick the princess into getting late for coronation, thereby giving you the chance to usurp the kingdom yourselves. Or whatever.

So forgive me for not entering the discussion of the detailed breakdown of what the spell can accomplish, since if there ever arises a situation where both 1+2 can happen, that breakdown can't be used.

It's much easier to step out of the game reality, and simply impose certain gameplay checks and balances there. Then, when the player knows what can and can't be done, you can give him or her leeway to work out the details freely, since now you don't need any particulars. Now you don't need detailed instructions since you have already instructed the player there are certain boundaries that the spell simply can't overstep.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Our take here, Saeviomagy, is that you'll have to take this up with WotC.

The fact a spell might be overpowered does not mean we get to wholesale invent new drawbacks of the spell. Or rather, you're welcome to, just as long as you don't try to sell your idea as RAW.

Except you are NOT arguing RAW. Both of our positions are interpretations of a very open ended spell.

Your position is that the spell can create anything, and will be modified by the target to create the rules effects the caster desires (ie - the caster says "I want to blind the target". The actual illusion is irrelevant: only the conditions and damage inflicted matters). In return, any attempt to break free by the target is converted into an investigation check.

My position is that the spell creates first and foremost the illusion of something, and it's that something that behaves in a coherent manner and at the same time cannot exert any force: only sensation.

I really don't think you can hold up either to be RAW. This is all well into RAI territory.