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

[bgbarcus]

Here's my question for DMs...

If a player does use Phantasmal Force to create a ring of burning flames around the target, how does the DM decide what action the target takes based on the perceived situation?

Is it just a judgment call or do the DMs out there make some kind of check?

Scenario 1: Flames all over the target and surrounding it.

Scenario 2: Just a wall of flame around it so that the target is cut off and has to decide whether or not he/she should try to jump through the flames.

If the flames obscure vision, can the creature attack targets? Do they attack at disadvantage?

The last question is easy, if the phantasm blocks vision, as described by the player using it, attacks against targets on the other side are against unseen targets and have disadvantage. If the illusion were solid and an arrow went through it I'd allow a save to disbelieve. But flames aren't solid.

In general I try to use the intelligence of targets and what I think their guy reaction would be to judge whether they would attempt to disbelieve. A beast is likely to react to fire with fear and not attempt to touch it so belief is almost certain. An orc from a tribe with a shaman that had illusions in it's spell list it's more likely than a bog standard orc to suspect an illusion.

This has always been the hardest spell for me to handle so I try to reward clever and creative uses more than bland phantasmal monsters. If the player entertains me the results will be better.

 

[Rhenny]

Here's another one worth thinking about, I think.

Say that the Phantasmal Force is of a giant frog (or frog like creature that can swallow a creature)...it faces the victim and swallows it.

The victim fails the initial Int Save so it thinks that it is inside the frog creature...perhaps taking 1d6 acid damage each of the caster's turns. It would not be able to see out of the frog, so it is effectively blind. It probably thinks that it would need to cut its way out or use strength to burst out before it is consumed. If it tries to burst out or cut out, the image does not change. It still engulfs and still presents the same sensory experience - darkness and burning acid.

It really isn't an illusion. It is all in the target's head. To me, the only sane way to adjudicate this spell is to allow a new Int (investigation) check each round that the target tries to do something to get out of it.

 

[jgsugden]

Hey jgsugden! As I wrote this is not intended to be the only way of interpreting it. It is meant to be a summary of this thread.

If you call something a summary, but only present one side of the discussion when there was disagreement as to how something should work, you're not providing a real summary - you're providing only a partial biased view.

What Jeremy Crawford says is that "A DM is free to allow additional effects". Of course, this is something a DM can always do. Unfortunately, the description of Phantasmal Force is very vague. And there are only a few answers of the game designers that clearly give an insight into the RAI. Those are actually the ones I linked in my summary. But I wouldn't add the one you stated to them, because he just said that "it's okay, when you allow more than the rules say".

Don't use quotes to your interpretation of his words... unless I missed him saying those words. Did I? Are those words in a post somewhere by him? That would surprise me as it does not appear to be what he meant. To me, it appears he means that illusions are subjective and hard to provide specific rules to adjudicate, so a DM should be free to apply additional effects where it makes sense for the perceived phantasm illusion.

Most important: Phantasmal Force is an illusion and therefore cannot force a creature physically. Otherwise it would be even more powerful than spells like "Hold Person/Beast/Monster". You just need to find a way to shackle any creature with something indestructible. Binding a dragon's wings with illusionary chains? I don't think that this is intended with a 3rd level spell. And most of the replies agreed to this interpretation (not everybody though).

2nd level spell, not 3rd. And there is a lot of disagreement across the various PF threads on this type of point. Regardless, I agree that PF chains would not prevent a creature being bound by them to be forced to move by a pushing effect, but I do not agree that a creature that is 'bound' to the ground by PF chains would be able to move because they would believe they could not - the phantasm is in the mind and someone convinced they can't do something can prevent themselves from doing it.

Treat this spell as you wish to. It's your choice. In most cases, nobody will be able to prove your interpretation wrong. But this thread was a try to find one that is consistent with the wording of the RAW and what is consistent in analogy to other spells.

And that is why I objected to you characterizing certain views as a summary of the thread when the views are very much not settled.

You may wish to look at what is different in the language of this spell and the language in some of the other illusion spells. Phantasmal force is a very different illusion. It exists entirely in the mind. The being subjected to it is so convinced of the truth of it that they'll justify things inconsistent with it. "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." There is no equivocation in that language. That creature bound to the ground by illusory chains might get pushed 10 feet... which couldn't happen when they're bound to the ground, right? Does that end the illusion? Until the target makes that check/save or the duration ends, the spell is in place. Specifically, the spell says the spell continues. They might believe the chains that attach to the floor broke... or that the chains reattached in a new location after releasing from the ground. That is up to the DM and the players.

This is a powerful 2nd level spell. More powerful than hold monster? In some ways, yes. In others, no. There are a lot of lower level spells that can be more powerful than higher level spells in certain situations.

 

[jgsugden]

...It really isn't an illusion. It is all in the target's head. To me, the only sane way to adjudicate this spell is to allow a new Int (investigation) check each round that the target tries to do something to get out of it.

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

The players and DM will come up with an explanation and run with it.

For those trying to picture how this will play out, there are a lot of comic books out there where telepathic villains (or heroes) torture people with hallucinations.

I give a passive investigation check whenever someone is interacting with the illusion. It is rare that the target will not interact with the illusion, but it does happen - for example, when the wizard used the spell to make a monster see a wall rather than a doorway, the monster walked right by the doorway without considering it.

I give an active investigation check if they interact meaningfully with the illusion. Fight the phantasmal frog? That d20 attack roll was actually an investigation check. Try to climb the illusory tree? That athletics check was really investigation.

This is a great spell to let the PCs be creative and heroic. Don't get so caught up in trying to create limiting rules that you curtail the chance for them to really shine. As a DM, that is what we're here to do - give the PCs a chance to b the heroes of the story.

 

[lkwpeter]

If you call something a summary, but only present one side of the discussion when there was disagreement as to how something should work, you're not providing a real summary - you're providing only a partial biased view.

I already said, this is a personal summary from this discussion. It's not meant to be a scientific work. So, you won't find much quotation. And you won't find evidence. It wasn't actually my intention to tell anybody how to rule it. I tried my best to summarize it and it was somehow a "service" for others to share it. So, what's your point? Take it our leave. it..

Don't use quotes to your interpretation of his words... unless I missed him saying those words. Did I? Are those words in a post somewhere by him? That would surprise me as it does not appear to be what he meant. To me, it appears he means that illusions are subjective and hard to provide specific rules to adjudicate, so a DM should be free to apply additional effects where it makes sense for the perceived phantasm illusion.

You took his words. I took the same. You tell me not to interpret them. A few sentences later you start your sentence with "To me, it appears he means that...".

I do not agree that a creature that is 'bound' to the ground by PF chains would be able to move because they would believe they could not - the phantasm is in the mind and someone convinced they can't do something can prevent themselves from doing it. And that is why I objected to you characterizing certain views as a summary of the thread when the views are very much not settled.

Where within the spell description have you found that the target is convinced no to be able to do something? It is only convinced to see an illusion. Full stop. And yes, there might even be some psychic damage (e.g. if you make the chains burning). But nowhere in the description it is written that the target is forced to do something. The target is not convinced that it can't move. It is just convinced that it sees chains (the illusion). If it moves, the chains will either move with the target or the target will pass through them (if the chains are fixed on a certain spot). The target will then reationalize that it got free in some way.

But to be honest, I don't want to discuss that again. We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that.

You may wish to look at what is different in the language of this spell and the language in some of the other illusion spells. Phantasmal force is a very different illusion. It exists entirely in the mind. The being subjected to it is so convinced of the truth of it that they'll justify things inconsistent with it. "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." There is no equivocation in that language. That creature bound to the ground by illusory chains might get pushed 10 feet... which couldn't happen when they're bound to the ground, right? Does that end the illusion? Until the target makes that check/save or the duration ends, the spell is in place. Specifically, the spell says the spell continues. They might believe the chains that attach to the floor broke... or that the chains reattached in a new location after releasing from the ground. That is up to the DM and the players.

Same answer: We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that.

Side note: I don't want to argue. This spell is a difficult one. Again, I don't claim this to be the truth. It was just meant to be a "service" for people that don't want to read the whole thread. But if you are interested in a further discussion of this spell than I suggest you do read the whole thread, so we have some kind of "anchor". Otherwise it's just discussing the same points all over again.

 

[lkwpeter]

The last question is easy, if the phantasm blocks vision, as described by the player using it, attacks against targets on the other side are against unseen targets and have disadvantage. If the illusion were solid and an arrow went through it I'd allow a save to disbelieve. But flames aren't solid.

I totally agree.

This has always been the hardest spell for me to handle so I try to reward clever and creative uses more than bland phantasmal monsters. If the player entertains me the results will be better.

That's actually a nice way of handling it. I treat it the same way.

Say that the Phantasmal Force is of a giant frog (or frog like creature that can swallow a creature)...it faces the victim and swallows it.

The victim fails the initial Int Save so it thinks that it is inside the frog creature...perhaps taking 1d6 acid damage each of the caster's turns. It would not be able to see out of the frog, so it is effectively blind. It probably thinks that it would need to cut its way out or use strength to burst out before it is consumed. If it tries to burst out or cut out, the image does not change. It still engulfs and still presents the same sensory experience - darkness and burning acid.


It really isn't an illusion. It is all in the target's head. To me, the only sane way to adjudicate this spell is to allow a new Int (investigation) check each round that the target tries to do something to get out of it.

Yes, it is an illusion (see school of magic). So, your effects are limited, even if this one is in the creatures mind. Just make sure not mix it up with enchantment spells like "Hold Monster" etc.

Your idea is really creative, but lso a bit tricky. Eating is a very complex process. It's not just "snap and done". It would have to swallow it, etc. The question is, if you can force the target to follow those complex processes. I don't think so. But that's up to you as a DM. Feel free to allow it - why not? The moment, the creature is within the frog's stomach, it would maybe huddle and wriggle in the acid. After some time if might try to break free. In this case, I would start allowing INT saves to see if it has success. But again, that's up to you and how far you want to reward your players for creative usages of PF.


You could also just cast an achid cloud that blinds the target.