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

[Undrhil]

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.

This is actually exactly what the spell says happens.

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.

The spell doesn't even really create and illusion. It creates a *hallucination* since only the target can see it. Since only the target can see it, it is up to the interpretation of the target as to what he/she/it actually observes from the spell. You create the image in their mind of a box over their head and they fill in the gaps. "There's a box over my head. It's a whole box, with no openings, so I can't see out of it. Let me try to lift it off my head."

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

As always, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Throw a few magic users at the PCs and have them use PF against the party. You'll see that if you play it by the book, it's not as strong as you are thinking it is. Or you'll absolutely love watching the BDF trying to get out of a box to continue fighting.

In fact, if you do this, don't even tell them that it's PF. Describe it exactly as how they would be seeing it. "The mage summons a box around you and it seals tight." Let them work out what's going on. Of course, you'll give it away when you start asking for INT (Investigation) checks against it, but it could be fun for the first round. That's the biggest issue I think you have with the spell is that *you* know it's not real but your monsters don't know that. They may not even be smart enough to realize that such a spell can exist. Stop thinking like the DM and think like the monster.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is actually exactly what the spell says happens.

The spell says it creates an object, creature or other phenomenon. It doesn't say anything about inflicting conditions, choosing how the illusion reacts to the target, or restricting any actions at all. It never gives an automatic investigation check when an interaction is illogical.

All of that is interpreting what's written. The only things we know for sure are:
1. It's an illusion of an object, creature or anything else that is visible.
2. It includes sound, temperature and other stimuli
3. It can deal damage
4. An illusion of a creature can attack
5. The target rationalizes illogical interactions
6. It cannot support the weight of a creature

Everything else is up for grabs.

The spell doesn't even really create and illusion. It creates a *hallucination* since only the target can see it. Since only the target can see it, it is up to the interpretation of the target as to what he/she/it actually observes from the spell. You create the image in their mind of a box over their head and they fill in the gaps. "There's a box over my head. It's a whole box, with no openings, so I can't see out of it. Let me try to lift it off my head."

Followed by "Oh, that succeeded, because my experience with physical objects are that they respond to me moving them about with my hands. I am no longer blind.", right? Why would I imagine a box on my head and then assume that it cannot be removed unless I have some sort of crippling phobia?

As always, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Throw a few magic users at the PCs and have them use PF against the party. You'll see that if you play it by the book, it's not as strong as you are thinking it is. Or you'll absolutely love watching the BDF trying to get out of a box to continue fighting.

I think when you say "play by the book", you mean "use the rules that Undrhil suggests are correct". Those aren't the rules in the book, as I discussed above.

In fact, if you do this, don't even tell them that it's PF. Describe it exactly as how they would be seeing it. "The mage summons a box around you and it seals tight." Let them work out what's going on. Of course, you'll give it away when you start asking for INT (Investigation) checks against it, but it could be fun for the first round. That's the biggest issue I think you have with the spell is that *you* know it's not real but your monsters don't know that. They may not even be smart enough to realize that such a spell can exist. Stop thinking like the DM and think like the monster.

See, in my interpretation, I'm not going to ask for int(investigation) checks against it: The player has to do that.

Of course usually when used against a PC, the first thing to happen will most likely be some pseudo-metagaming between the PC and his companions, rapidly working out that something funny is going on.

 

[lkwpeter]

In short:

I like RAW. But this spell description is very vague. I think its necessary to also consider statements given by Jeremy Crawford/Mike Mearls as they specify the intention about rules. A few points, you are arguing about even seem very clear then.

There is no "auto success" or "auto trigger" for an INT (Investigation) check, because the rules don't say so. The decision when to ask for such a check depends on the context/monster. So, it's per DM/Player discretion. Rule it, as you want. There is no "correct/incorrect".

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

It is not I who came up with the idea the spell could blind you, so stop misrepresenting my position. Take that up with Jeremy Crawford.

In the context of this conversation, please ignore my poisition. The only relevant message of mine is: you have made up a way to get rid of the spell that does not involve either making the initial Int save or the subsequent Investigation checks. That's totally on you.

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

That might be true, but nothing about this changes that you made up a way to break the spell that isn't in the description.
(It actually isn't true, since you could fix this in many other ways as well...but still)

Please stop trying to pass off your idea as anything other than a personal houserule.

There's nothing wrong with your idea, and I have already wished you good luck with it. What is misleading, however, is when you don't admit you're making up your own parameters of the spell.

You have completely invented something. I realize you're convinced its RAI, but it simply isn't there, my friend.

 

[ThePolarBear]

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

Not a mother language speaker here too. So we are on the same page.

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.

I thought about stating "directly" affecting something. But that should make an exception for "causing damage or other possible psychical effects" that coud result from such an interaction. Seeing a gigantic rock rolling towards a target while them have no way to get to safety would deal 1d6 psychic damage and make them at the very least wet their pants
I think that the shock would be real, even if fleeting, until the moment that the creature realizes that it's all over and that life goes on.
I know that what i described is not the "direct" you meant. But - reading it in a vacuum - might still be misinterpreted, even under the "status effect" part of the explanation should not relate to the "damage" part of the spell.

Followed by "Oh, that succeeded, because my experience with physical objects are that they respond to me moving them about with my hands. I am no longer blind.", right? Why would I imagine a box on my head and then assume that it cannot be removed unless I have some sort of crippling phobia?

I think "no, that can't happen" for a couple of reasons:

• You can't interact physically with the box. It's an imaginary construct, there's no physicality associated with it. You can't "physically" lift it, so you can't lift it. Not that i think you disagree with this, but it's important to establish this point.
• You are therefore experiencing something that's an illogical interaction. What happens when you experience something like that created by PF? You rationalize the inconsistent behavior. You are not rationalizing an inconsistent behavior, you are making the behavior consistent. That's not how the spell says such interactions are managed.
• You are changing the nature of the illusion. You have no such power. The illusion of a box standing beside your foot will not change if you kick it. The box will not fly away. It won't break if you smash it with a sledgehammer. You can't "physucally" interact with it, and you have no control over that illusion mentally other than realizing that it's an illusion.

In your interpretation the spell IMHO is basically gutted for everything except for area denial and even thet is iffy. There's a creature? I kill it. One swing, dead, since that's what happens when i swing at something and that something gets beheaded. That creature is attacking me? Well, let's see if it MISSES, because obviously a bear has to hit me to damage me, right? What statistics does that creature have?
So what do i, caster, gain for casting this spell? Mostly i waste the person action IF something else doesn't happen that makes the illusion useless before my target turns and IF my target fails the save. That's worse than every 2nd level control spell, prehaps excluding Crown of Madness, and flat out worse than every damage spell (and probably already is since it requires a lot of turns to ramp up the damage)

See, in my interpretation, I'm not going to ask for int(investigation) checks against it: The player has to do that.

And [MENTION=6804713]lkwpeter[/MENTION] too, since it's related to "auto triggering" a check.

It's, for me, converting the action of "investigating something" (that would not make sense if the target is already convinced in the existance of the illusion as part of "reality" so strongly that is rationalizing falling from an illusionary bridge that can't support its weight since it's an illusion as "there was wind so strong that catapulted me out" as a possible explanation) as the action of "interacting with something and therefore having an inconsistent result out of it and seeing if i rationalize or not". I'm not going to spend an action "examining" the bear that's mauling me, following me, it's totally a bear and sheep i'm bleeding oh please make it stop. I'm going to strike the bear or try to stop it from mauling me with arms and armor and stones if i have them, each time incurring in the inconsistency "the bear is not affected in the slightest and passes through all my defences".

I am investigating the bear. I'm poking it, smelling it, possibly tasting it if i also try to bite it in an attempt to defend myself. I'm declaring an action that's not POSSIBLE, normally, for me to declare since i do not know i HAVE the possibility to declare it in the first place. I do not have the knowledge to do so. I see a bear, and the bear is there. I'm the only one that can see the bear but, for all i know, i'm the one that's right and everyone else is wrong. I have wounds that prove it. I'm feeling pain.

I firmly believe that it's in the intent of 5e to have less if no "action wasting" - i see also the various rules and rulings for not wasting spells if targets are not valid as a confirmation on that belief. I might be totally wrong and there are cases when actions DO go to waste, but it's usually after a conscious decisipon of a player to risk it.

That's why for me the "investigating" the illusion should be taken as the broadest range of meaning. As "Interacting". I know, not what's written, but it think it's more in line that way. Obviously, all rights reserved to change depending on the situation.

 

[Gadget]

I firmly believe that it's in the intent of 5e to have less if no "action wasting" - i see also the various rules and rulings for not wasting spells if targets are not valid as a confirmation on that belief. I might be totally wrong and there are cases when actions DO go to waste, but it's usually after a conscious decisipon of a player to risk it.

That's why for me the "investigating" the illusion should be taken as the broadest range of meaning. As "Interacting". I know, not what's written, but it think it's more in line that way. Obviously, all rights reserved to change depending on the situation.

While the balance of this spell as written may be in question, and I would not presume to have all of the answers or I may not understand your meaning here, I think it is quite clear that these type of spells are designed to "waste" an action on the part of victim.

From Silent Image: "A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC."
The language from Major Image is the same.

From the spell under discussion: "The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC".

It seems pretty clear that the target must "waste" an action to investigate the phantasm to escape the spell's effects. Unlike other illusion spells, this spell does not create an actual 'holographic' image in space for any to see, but an image that only exists in the target's mind. Therefore interaction does not expose the image as false as it does with the Image spells. Now, I would probably have most semi-intelligent NPCs/Monsters perform an investigation action after fighting (and being mauled by) a bear for several rounds, YMMV.

Once again, it may be that I misinterpreted your meaning and you understand this perfectly well and are simply ruling this way to tone down what you consider to be an overpowered spell. If so, I apologize.

 

[Undrhil]

Whenever I use PF, I summon a Gelatinous Cube around the target. At this point, several things happen.

1) the target starts to hold its breath *because it believes itself to be inside of a Gelatinous Cube. If it were to take a breath, it would realize that it could breath just fine.
2) the target cannot see anything beyond the "cube". It actually can, but the illusion has it believing that it cannot.
3) the target starts taking acid damage. It is actually taking psychic damage but it believes it is taking acid damage since it is inside of a Gelatinous Cube.

Ordinarily, a creature in a Gelatinous Cube would do an opposed check to try to escape. The creature does this but fails to escape. It believes that it simply wasn't strong enough to do so. It tries again, putting all of its might into it. This time it is *certain* that it should have escaped, but something is preventing him from doing so. Now it takes a moment to actually examine the cube and, on a successful INT (Investigation) check, realizes it's all an illusion. On a failed INT (investigation) check, the cube appears to be real and the creature is still struggling.

Now, if one of the creatures allies or enemies were to come over to it and stand next to it, it would observe them inside the Gelatinous Cube but not being affected by it. Well, maybe they succeeded on something to let them get into the cube to rescue it. Or maybe there's something else going on.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In your interpretation the spell IMHO is basically gutted for everything except for area denial and even thet is iffy. There's a creature? I kill it. One swing, dead, since that's what happens when i swing at something and that something gets beheaded.

No, typically what happens is that you make an attack roll, and if you hit, you tick off some hit points. If you've ticked off enough hit points, it dies. Enough hit points is usually multiple rounds worth.

Regardless, D&D provides the DM with a model for an expected reality: if you've made a phantasm of a bear, why not use the stats of a bear?

That creature is attacking me? Well, let's see if it MISSES, because obviously a bear has to hit me to damage me, right? What statistics does that creature have?

"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". Seems pretty clear to me. It's one of the few explicit rules in the spell.

So what do i, caster, gain for casting this spell? Mostly i waste the person action IF something else doesn't happen that makes the illusion useless before my target turns and IF my target fails the save. That's worse than every 2nd level control spell, prehaps excluding Crown of Madness, and flat out worse than every damage spell (and probably already is since it requires a lot of turns to ramp up the damage)

If the target fails the save (and it's more likely to than hold person, since few monsters have a good intelligence save), you've wasted at least one round of the target's time, plus dealt them some damage, plus potentially temporarily inflicted a status on them. If you picked a good illusion (a monster that they actually will stick around and fight, a puzzle they'll try to work out instead of brute their way through), you're wasting more time and dealing more damage.

PLUS

It still works for utility purposes.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Once again, it may be that I misinterpreted your meaning and you understand this perfectly well and are simply ruling this way to tone down what you consider to be an overpowered spell. If so, I apologize.

Yup. That for me is using an action, not wasting it. Even if you fail, you attempted something that could have given you a benefit. With "wasting" i meant something like "attacking an PF-bear". That, normally, yelds absolutely nothing since the target of PF simply rationalizes that the sword just went through the creature. Nothing happens. Not even having a clue that the thing he tried to slash is an illusion since there's a rationalization process. There's so much convinction that the action is simply wasted if is not considered something akin to investigating.

I do not consider PF overpowered. It's in line with other spells.

Whenever I use PF, I summon a Gelatinous Cube around the target. At this point, several things happen.

1) the target starts to hold its breath *because it believes itself to be inside of a Gelatinous Cube. If it were to take a breath, it would realize that it could breath just fine.
2) the target cannot see anything beyond the "cube". It actually can, but the illusion has it believing that it cannot.
3) the target starts taking acid damage. It is actually taking psychic damage but it believes it is taking acid damage since it is inside of a Gelatinous Cube.

Imho:

Holding one's breath does nothing (well, at the very LEAST for 30 seconds - 5 rounds. And even then, when the time passes, the target would breathe. It's a natural reaction, you TRY to breathe when you really can't hold it anymore). Also, the problem is not that there's acid that would kill the target. A creature in the cube can't breathe since there's no air. You would be breathing gelatine. But that's not what happens inside this illusion and the target would rationalized it somehow (oh lucky the only GC with an air pocket!). Seeing is not impeded, the Cube is trasparent (not because it's an illusion - it's a trait of the cube). Damage is there and rationalized.

Ordinarily, a creature in a Gelatinous Cube would do an opposed check to try to escape. The creature does this but fails to escape. It believes that it simply wasn't strong enough to do so.

Why? It tries to move and notices that it's not impeded in any kind of movement. It's not restrained - it can't be. This gets rationalized, but how? The target clearly notices that he can move around and can try to get out of the GC. Prehaps it would not do so, it might still believe that to get out there's the need of help from outside or to pass the check, but movement is not impeded. It can't be.

It tries again, putting all of its might into it. This time it is *certain* that it should have escaped, but something is preventing him from doing so. Now it takes a moment to actually examine the cube and, on a successful INT (Investigation) check, realizes it's all an illusion. On a failed INT (investigation) check, the cube appears to be real and the creature is still struggling.

I would like a turn breakdown here, because prehaps we are saying the same things. But i still can't agree that the creature would still be struggling - it's not. It CAN'T BE. The illusion is "you are inside a GC", so that would still remain. The target CANNOT escape the illlusion physically. The illusion would simply follow - the fastest GC in the world, the one with the air pocket and so soft you can walk inside of it!. So, again, why simply not try to leave? The target might believe it's inside a Gelatinous Cube, but all the effects of a GC except the damage are not there. The target would not be able to leave, but that would need a rationalization on why.

Prehaps the way that @lkrpeter is looking for describing for the spell limitations is that "You can make someone believe that they can do something that they, in reality, can't - or the opposite. You cannot make so that a creature will not be able to do something that in reality could UNLESS said limitation applies to senses, since the illusion does affect how the target perceives things, or break the illusion in a way that's not by realizing that its, in fact, an illusion - with the investigation check above ". Still unsatisfied, however.

Now, if one of the creatures allies or enemies were to come over to it and stand next to it, it would observe them inside the Gelatinous Cube but not being affected by it. Well, maybe they succeeded on something to let them get into the cube to rescue it. Or maybe there's something else going on.

Considering that he himself is not inside a "normal" gelatinous cube, that's the least improbable rationalization that the target has to make.

No, typically what happens is that you make an attack roll, and if you hit, you tick off some hit points. If you've ticked off enough hit points, it dies. Enough hit points is usually multiple rounds worth.

Regardless, D&D provides the DM with a model for an expected reality: if you've made a phantasm of a bear, why not use the stats of a bear?

Mechanically, prehaps. When you stab something with the intent to kill and the target does nothing to evade, you kill it, if you are competent. The attack, however, goes through the bear. It's not there. That's what the target needs to rationalize. It can be rationalized as an "i missed", as "the hide is so resistant", but not as "i hit it! I did Damage!" since that did not happen. The illusion is there, unfazed. Same thing with a box, a trap, a cloud of poison, fire, anything. You have to rationalize something that's inconsistent, not make something inconsistent consistent.

"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". Seems pretty clear to me. It's one of the few explicit rules in the spell.

I was using your (well, what i think is your) view of how the spell works. I know how much damage the spell does. I also know that it's not on the target's part to make the spell do something that was not cast for - like the box leaving the head of the target, or the bear missing.

If the target fails the save (and it's more likely to than hold person, since few monsters have a good intelligence save), you've wasted at least one round of the target's time,
plus dealt them some damage, plus potentially temporarily inflicted a status on them. If you picked a good illusion (a monster that they actually will stick around and fight, a puzzle they'll try to work out instead of brute their way through), you're wasting more time and dealing more damage.

PLUS

It still works for utility purposes.

The time spent at minimum is one action, not one turn. It would still deal damage on your first turn, however. And there are not many conditions one can actually inflict that actually are binding (as in, can take hold, not "binding" binding).

Again, compare it to Hold Person. Hold Person targets a different save (possibly worse, can't really confirm but i'll take it for true by your words), is limited in the kind of things one can target. But the minimum duration assuming no save is one of the target turns, during which the target is paralyzed - and that's HUGE. Auto crit huge. Auto fail saves huge.

Suggestion can be used to keep one creatures out of a fight directly - again, limitations on targeting - and a duration that's VERY long. It can also be used for other uses, possibly more than PF can, and Hold Person is limited for it.

Blindness/Deafness do not require concetration so if you are using concentration for something else B/D is one of the few options. Way less utility, however, of Hold Person, if this is even possible.

By having the target of the spell have to roll with his action if said action is used to interact with the illusion would brings the spell in line with B/D and HP - one check a turn. Less powerful that HP - it burns only an action, not a turn -, more than B/D - doesn't restrict action economy, restricts the pool of actions. Suggestion does not have other saves, but has an auto free condition.

By adding an auto free condition you are reducing the spell a little bit too much Imho.

 

[lkwpeter]

I firmly believe that it's in the intent of 5e to have less if no "action wasting" - i see also the various rules and rulings for not wasting spells if targets are not valid as a confirmation on that belief. I might be totally wrong and there are cases when actions DO go to waste, but it's usually after a conscious decisipon of a player to risk it.

That's why for me the "investigating" the illusion should be taken as the broadest range of meaning. As "Interacting". I know, not what's written, but it think it's more in line that way. Obviously, all rights reserved to change depending on the situation.

Just one question: Are you for or against asking for an INT (Investigation) check very early on? I read your post and agreed to your argumentation. At the end, I was surprised in the outcome, because I understand your wording that you would initiate the investigation of the illusion very quickly (e.g. after realizing that the bear takes no damage after hitting him a few times). Am I misunderstanding you?



In general, there are two things I want to throw into the middle:

1.)Fighting monsters:

The question rasised, if the spell's target would notice that something weird is going on after attacking the illusionary creature a few times (maybe noticing it can't be hit or damaged). The rules explicitly state the option to create an attacking monsters. So, I would be surprised, if WotC would give an example of something that is only half valid and therefore trigger an investigation check. Otherwise they would have said so.

Questions about "how to explain that the monster can't be hit or damaged" seem to be made up problems that are obsolete. The target rationalizes it in whatever way. Full stop. I think, there is no need to make things more complicated than they are.

In advance, keep in mind that the target doesn't have to attack the bear. It still can attack any other target. And it might even treat 1D6 damage not as the biggest thread. So, I don't believe that a 1D6 DOT effect is being liable to become game breaking. Therefore, I don't sse a need of an investigation check to nerf the spell.


2.) Reasons for investigating the illusion:

As a lot of your previous posts already say, the target rationalizes most of the inconsistencies. So, that can't be a reason to ask for an investigation check, because the creature/character wouldn't normally do this with other creatures/objects, etc. as well (as @ThePolarBear also said).

Therefore, one possibility (perhaps not the only one) might lie in external influences - e.g. by other players/monsters. For example, companions could realize that the target is doing weird stuff and shout at him: "Hey, why are you fighting the air?" or "Move! Don't just stand there!". Dependend on the way they do that and the type of effect, this may take from one to a couple of rounds, until the creature believes them and starts investigating the illusion.

To cut a long story short:

• I think, the only logical way to legitimize an investigation check is, if the target has doubts about the effect. Otherwise it wouldn't investigate it, because it wouldn't do so in other situations (e.g. in a real fight, or with real objects).
• The problem is, that these doubts raise very hard, because the target rationalizes everything itself. If that wouldn't be absolutely intended than the spell wouldn't say so.
• Therefore there are only a very few valid reasons to trigger a check. One of them could be given by external influences.

Closing:

Regardless of the illusionary effect (attacking monster, status effect, object), I don't see this spell to be game breaking anymore. Yes, it's versatile. But neither its damage (1D6/round) nor its distraction / crowd control options (e.g. a fire cage) are too bad in comparism with other level 2 spells (e.g. Hold Person) - not even, if they are combined!

In this topic, we talked a lot about restrictions. In the beginning there were people that allowed "chaining a creature" or making it "extinguish in a pool of illusionary water". Looking back, a lot of these improper usages have been corrected. In the end, there will always be some parts/usages that rely on DM's discretion. But in my view, the spell doesn't appear to be broken as it was before this discussion.


Regards