[MENTION=6804713]lkwpeter[/MENTION]
[sblock]
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?
I'm in for making a player roll for investigation if said player spends an Action interacting in some way with the illusion, if said interaction provides some sort of "examination". Attacking it, trying to break free of it, stuff like that. So yeah, i'm in for having the check done een on the first action possible.
This however depends also on how one plays their game with their group. A full open group has no problem with any of this since the first thing the DM would say is "you are under PF now, you see this and that. Take x damage". Such a group relies on trust and ability of players and DM to play in a way that can be consistent with the separation of player and character knowledge (and trust the various members at the table to act accordingly) or simply does not care about that and has fun anyway. In both cases the problem is not there to begin with.
This is the solution i found that works for me and my players, since we play with informations given via descriptions and not directly stated where possible. As such is important for me to have a way to make the player understand what's going on and how to "get out of it", and this way we found to be a way we like - "OOOoooh i see! It's an illusion then, my character is under a spell and this is how you end the effect...". It can change according to preferences exactly how one can use open rolling or DM hidden rolls.
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.
Absolutely. The problem i have with the spell is that in fact the target rationalizes every inconsistency, every illogic interaction. Even "they can't see it and are telling me that itìs not there" gets rationalized. There's nothing that does not fit the bill, so there must be a reason for the existance of the check and the ability of a player to ask one. The player should know that the spell is there, but make a character act without such a knowledge. My "interaction means investigation" clears the DM of any possible problem of "it wouldn't investigate!" that might crop up while letting the DM be free to ignore the illusion should that be the logical thing to do anyway. It also allows the playstyle of my table to go on.
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.
External influences are still illogical outcomes. They still get rationalized. If i were to tell you "that cellphone on the table isn't real" would you believe me or not? You would check the phone, right? And rationalize that your hand goes through or whatever. What's the difference between a sword and your hand? You are rationalizing anyway. Rationalizing illogical outcomes makes investigating impossible, everything would end up "ok", no matter how wrong it really is. If a player knows your character is under a spell then it CAN take an action, that gets narrate however one pleases, to identify the illusion. If a player does not know or has to make so that the disbelieving is "acceptable" there must be something to have that knowledge across. I found the way that works for me.
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.
A little thing: For my view there's a window of opportunity for such check to be made the moment an Action is spent in a way that triggers an illogical outcome with the illusion (objective: try to avoid wasted actions/many other benefits cons: Many).
If you prefer to work with external influences: Perfectly fine
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
Happy to have been useful if you found my comments to be of some worth
Have a nice game and have fun!
[/sblock]
[MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]
[sblock]
There's way more creatures with a high con than there are with a high int. Even things that are described as cunning manipulative spellcasters get an int of 13-15. The sole exception is dragons.
Con? I suppose you meant Wis? Hold Person is Wisdom, as is Suggestion. B/D is Con, but in the part you quoted there was no mention of it.
Explain why phantasmal force cannot paralyze the target? if you can create any visible phenomenon and you can also determine the end result of that, then there isn't anything stopping you creating a full body force field that holds the target motionless.
Because you do not create a full body force field, but the illusion of a full body force field. The target can see, hear, smell, taste and recieves tactile feedback on the proprieties of said field (does it make your hair rise since it is electric in nature? Is it hot? Cold? Is it smooth?) but it does not exists and cannot impede or support physical actions.
An illusory bridge can't hold a person on it.
An illusory sword won't cut.
An illusory force field will not contain anything.
The target will know that there's a force field and that said force field would normally hold him so tight to be paralyzed, but that does not happen. And proceeds to rationalize this illogical result.
Right, but blindness/deafness does one thing and one thing only. It doesn't eliminate a foe from a fight: it reduces their effectiveness. Hold person and phantasmal force can potentially not only eliminate a foe from a fight, but also let you kill them super good.
Only HP does that. Phantasmal Force doesn't. At most, it forces some sort of sensorial impedment (blind due to bag on the head) or provokes a reaction on the target that might be what you had in mind when creating the illusion (like stopping a person running towards you creating a pool of lava on the floor). The reaction the target has, however, depends on what the caster creates and how the target can in the end do: you can create the illusion of a bridge on a chasm you just crossed to have one of your pursuers try to step on it and fall. If your pursuer can fly, however, why use the bridge in the first place? "Yeah, it's there, i can still fly."
Same for Suggestion. It has the ability to remove a fighter from a fight but it depends on the situation: during a taver brawl a suggestion like "just stop fighting and leave. It's not worth risking injuries over something this small" is very likely to be considered reasonable, while the same in the lair of a dragon is not going to be valid, if cast on a Dragon defending its hoard.
Again: you are considering only the combat applications of the spell and ignoring any intelligent use. Phantasmal force used to do the same thing as these spells should be less effective. Otherwise why would you memorize these spells instead of phantasmal force?
Different schools of specialization for once. Second because each does something different in different situations. Phantasmal Force is versatile but it's weaker than any other spell in each of every other spell in regards to what that spell does. Also, PF does not scale with slot level.
First: the auto free condition (in this case) probably won't come up anyway: even the strongest foe only has a 30% chance to bust out of basic equipment manacles - it's a fundamentally bad course of action to take.
Basic real manacles. Illusionary manacles it's impossible,at least physically, if the illusion is "manacles on the wrists". This does not mean that those manacles can restrict the target in any way unless the target restricts himself for some reason (like going prone if he believes there's a cloud of gas above his head, or choosing not to move if inside a cage). No one forces the target to take any action in a way that would constrict himself - he does so because he belives that's the best course of action, until proven otherwise (like trying to check if those manacle restrict his movement in any way)
Secondly: I'm encouraging the illusionist to pick out something appropriate to his target instead of just encasing everything in an invincible field of opaque burning energy, which just becomes the default if the only way to free yourself is an investigation check.
... that only deal 1d6 of damage, since said field is not going to stop anyone to try and find themselves able to move on turn 1 which is not even a roll - no one was ever really impeded.
How do i deal with it instead of having an action "wasted"? Your attempt to free yourself ended with you learning something about the effect - you examined it. You roll to see if you rationalize or realize what's happening. In the end, you spent your action investigating the effect if you spent an action in some way interacting with the illusion.
[/sblock]
