D&D 5E Phantasmal Force's non-saving throw--how would you handle?

[KarinsDad]

Actually, KD, the PC rolling on the ground trying to put the illusory fire out is showing me that he's NOT got any doubt it's real fire. So, until he wakes up from the 0HP, he THINKS he is burning to death.

Yes, initially. But as part of that process, the flames are not going out and he is interacting with the illusion.


This also results in a double penalty for the spell that shouldn't exist.

You are rolling on the ground trying to put out the fire. That takes up an action (or minimally Movement).

And, you are taking auto-damage from the fire.


When compared to something like Hold Person which gets a save every round and the PC loses his action and he grants advantaged attacks, at least the PC gets a save every round. Getting two saves total (the normal one when the spell is cast, and an Int check later on) should mean that the PC is not also wasting actions every round and taking damage without a to hit or a save every round. IMO.

This sounds extremely potent and abusive if interacting with the illusion (and using up an action to do so) does not result in the Int check.

Additionally, your comment here illustrates the OP's point. If the character really thinks that he is on fire, he would never take the time out to "use an action to make an Int check". He would try other worthless actions to accomplish the unattainable goal.


But from the PC's perspective, what is an "examine the phantasm with an Intelligence [Investigation] check against your spell save DC" action? Does one stand there an ponder it like Sherlock Holmes? Meh. I prefer that the character interact with the illusion to "examine it". Patting down the fire with one's hands, rolling on the ground, all of these (in my mind) mean that he is closely examining the illusion as opposed to ignoring it.

Another aspect of this is that this is only spell (TMK) that uses this mechanic. If one's adjudication typically minimizes the mechanic from being used (by forcing the player or DM to explicitly declare an Int check action by the PC or NPC), then why have the mechanic in the spell? So that players can rarely guess the right answer when an NPC casts this spell on them?

 

[aramis erak]

The save isn't for "interacting with" but for investigating. Taking time to willfully look for the discrepancies.

It's a second level spell... and it only does 1d6 damage a round. And it's a concentration spell. It's a single target, and no-one else sees it... a suitable fuss, and being told by a compatriot, "It ain't there," is plenty of reason to stop and look.

But the investigation is boilerplate text, anyway. It's the illusion equivalent to Magic Missile - the victim can't do much to stop it, but the damage is low.

I don't think I'd have it do damage to unconscious characters...

 

[KarinsDad]

The save isn't for "interacting with" but for investigating. Taking time to willfully look for the discrepancies.

It's a second level spell... and it only does 1d6 damage a round. And it's a concentration spell. It's a single target, and no-one else sees it... a suitable fuss, and being told by a compatriot, "It ain't there," is plenty of reason to stop and look.

But the investigation is boilerplate text, anyway. It's the illusion equivalent to Magic Missile - the victim can't do much to stop it, but the damage is low.

I don't think I'd have it do damage to unconscious characters...

Your point is well made. There are other illusion spells that allow for investigation.

But, the OP's point is still valid:

It's sort of a catch-22. The target might attempt the Intelligence (Investigation) check if it had reason to suspect the phantasm isn't real. But while affected, the target rationalizes reasons for the phantasm to be real. Even companions yelling "You're not on fire! It's not real! It's an illusion!" would be rationalized away as the flames being spirit flames, or otherwise imperceptible.

Unlike most illusions, this one does damage. Unlike many illusions, this one is in the mind of the target, not actually a magical external effect. And unlike most illusions, this one explicitly states that the target rationalizes reasons for it to be real.

There is also the fact that the companions of the target cannot see or hear the effect, so they wouldn't know what is happening unless the target explicitly says so. A PC walking towards the fake bridge would get zero warnings from his friends usually.

Like the OP said, it's sort of a catch-22.


Btw, I do not have the book in front of me, but can this spell be cast in higher level slots for more damage? That could make it really uber.

 

[steeldragons]

I'd say that if you spent your round interacting with the illusion (fighting a creature, dousing flames, whatever) that should count as "spending your action to examine the illusion."

That's fine. If you want to rule that way. It is not, I will continue to assert, RAW or AI.

The issue is, you go on to say...

In other words, in the sentence "The target can use its action to examine the phantasm..." maybe the "use its action" part is more relevant than the "examine" part. It's not like it says "The target can take the Search action..." or anything that specific.

<emphasis mine>[EDIT: heh heh. Italics don't show up as emphasis in quotes cuz everything's italicized. My bad. Now, emphasis mine. /EDIT]

When in fact, the spell description does, explicitly, say "or anything that specific"...a skill check. It's not phrased as taking an action, because it is understood that the skill [investigation] is using your action. (see below)

(Please don't insult my reading comprehension. I'll assume you didn't mean to come across that way. Smileys do not make it better.)

Apologies for coming off brusk. You quoted the first half of a sentence and then assert the direct opposite of what the rest of the sentence states. I was confused by how that was possible.

I don't understand how the bold and italicized portion of that sentence negates my interpretation. The spell does not say you need to take the Search action or that the character needs to call for using Intelligence (Investigation) or that the victim needs to suspect the phantasm of being an illusion.

No. It doesn't say you need to use the Search action. Correct. It does not.

It does say you need to examine, through the Investigation skill.

The notation "Ability [skill] check", throughout the book, is saying that you are making an ability check...using a skill. In this case, the skill is Investigation. As opposed to the "Ability check" of, say, an attack roll or a (specifically called out) saving throw ...which this, essentially is: a roll to overcome the spell...if you "examine the phantasm".

Whether that constitutes the "use of an [formal] Action" is similarly not in dispute (see below).

In the case of Phantasmal Force, it could depend on a case-by-case basis of what the illusion actually is, how the PC is interacting with it, and falls into the "rulings not rules" of the system...if you want it to. Illusion/Phantasm spells in D&D have always had their fuzzy grey areas and complications of what characters believe in the face of what players know.

[I am certain I'm not the only person who has been in the game(s) which, the moment an illusionist has been identified -sometimes not even then, but suspected- every encounter, interaction and, indeed, empty hallways, are met with "I disbelieve!!!" before the scene's description is even complete.]

Again, if you want to interpret things that way, and say use of any action (to attack, disengage -as I would guess the "stop, drop, & roll" guy would be doing, dodge, etc...) is enough to constitute the investigation/examination, that's fine. It's your table and happy gaming.

But the spell, and game as written, does not say that.

I will call attention to PHB, p. 174, "Ability Checks", second sentence, in which it states, quite flatly, "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
<emphasis mine>

In this spell's case, that attempted action is using a skill, Investigation.

SO, again, I would not rule/play that way. But nobody's stopping you.

 

[Jaelommiss]

It cannot be cast in higher slots, so neither the damage or number of people affects can increase. Well, I suppose you could use it in a higher slot if you want to, but there's no benefits to doing so. I personally see taking an action to inspect something as entirely different to simply interacting with it. I interact with hundreds of things daily, but certainly do not examine more than a couple. Taking time to check every part of a spoon for scratches is examining it. Using it to eat soup is not, even if it takes longer. To use the bridge as an example, suppose the party rogue was scouting ahead and had this spell cast on him by a hidden foe as he approached a chasm. He sees a bridge crossing to the other side. If he attempts to look for traps, identify the material it is made of, or wants to try to identify who made it based on archetectural design, I would allow him to make the investigation check because he is going out of his way to inspect the illusion. If he simply tried to cross without doing any of that, I would tell him what he assumes happened (the listed example is slipped off). If the illusion was an opponent, a gnome for instance, I would tell the player who attacks it that the gnome avoided all of his attacks. If the player was in a hidden location and scouting an enemy camp, and then started asking multiple questions about the gnome (what weapons is he carrying, what armour, distinguishing features, does he seem to be in charge, etc.) then I would allow an investigation check. Only druids and wizards are proficient in Int saving throws, making it useful against most targets. It's also, depending on the DM, rather difficult to break out of. The downside is that it doesn't improve later on and can only affect a single target. Once higher level spells are available it isn't worth the concentration it takes except in rare circumstances.Edit: It's not letting me put spaces between paragraphs. Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My reading is this:
1) You get an INT save to determine if you believe the illusion in front of you or not.
2) If you fail the save, you believe it to be real. When you look at it, smell it, taste it, hear it, it seems real. It puts a sword through you or sets you on fire, you feel pain (represented by damage).
3) Even if you fail the save, you may will yourself to believe it's not real. This takes time and concentration (it is your action for the round), and it isn't always successful (it's a skill check). You pinch yourself, you bite your tongue, you shake your head and try to clear your thoughts -- it's explicitly an effort to get rid of the illusion, not a normal part of interacting with it. You may do this if, for instance, a friend says "you're not actually on fire!" (but you feel it burning), or if you notice that the dragon breathing down on you seems to have a slightly off color, or if you realize you can't actually see the face of that man who is stabbing you.

This means that you don't get a free check just for having the illusion affect you. That thing can catch you on fire. If you want to not be on fire anymore, you have to spend some time getting rid of it. You already failed your save, you don't get to get away consequence-free just by hitting it with a sword or stepping into it. You failed your save. If you want to stop taking damage from it, pay the price for that failure.

To let someone dispel the illusion simply by interacting with it is taking away one of the benefits of it being a phantasmal force (and thus being more powerful than spells like silent image) -- that the brain believes it to be real.

 

[77IM]

You quoted the first half of a sentence and then assert the direct opposite of what the rest of the sentence states. I was confused by how that was possible.

Ah, did you think I was suggesting NOT to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check? I never said not to make the ability check called for by the spell.

That's what the second half of the sentence says, right? "...with an Intelligence [Investigation] check against your spell save DC." I never said to skip that check. Was that ever in dispute?

I think we are disputing the meaning of "examine" which is in the first half of the sentence, which was part of what I quoted: "The target can use its action to examine the phantasm..."

I guess the way I play, is what some people call "leading with the fiction." Say what your character is doing in game-world-terms (e.g. "I'm smothering the flames with my cloak to extinguish them") and then the DM, with input from the players, decides how to resolve that mechanically. In some cases, like attack rolls, the situation and mechanics are really clearly defined so there's seldom any debate. (Although there could be: do you "attack" the flames with your cloak?)

Is the term "examine" ever defined in D&D? Do you have to look at the phantasm? What if it's dark, can you touch it and feel around? What if it's an illusory medusa so you avert your gaze: does this prevent you from examining the phantasm?

Suppose a player tries to attack the phantasm. Are they taking the attack action? The phantasm isn't a creature or object, and has no AC or hit points. Is that player taking the Do Nothing action? ("I cast magic missile at the darkness!")

I think that what constitutes "use an action to examine" is up to the DM's discretion. Because I'm a lenient DM I'd assume that in the case of an illusion, attempting to do something to it could involve examining it. Maybe putting out the flames by stop-drop-and-roll doesn't count because you're not paying much attention; while pouring water on the flames implies that you are looking right at them to decide how to best pour the water... and when you notice that the water isn't working very well, you get the Intelligence (Investigation) check.

I realize that I may have a looser criteria than many DMs, but, I don't think that it's outside the RAW... just on the edge.

 

[steeldragons]

Ah, did you think I was suggesting NOT to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check? I never said not to make the ability check called for by the spell.

That's what the second half of the sentence says, right? "...with an Intelligence [Investigation] check against your spell save DC." I never said to skip that check. Was that ever in dispute?

Well, yes. By your saying the spell description does not require an action (like Search), when making an ability[skill] check is your action, is a dispute/being disputed. You said, "the spell doesn't say..." when the spell, actually, does.

I think we are disputing the meaning of "examine" which is in the first half of the sentence, which was part of what I quoted: "The target can use its action to examine the phantasm..."

Except, we're not. I am not disputing that is what the spell description says. I am disputing that you want to look at one piece of it and ignore the other and not just any other, but the actual remainder of the very same sentence. It is...baffling.

I guess the way I play, is what some people call "leading with the fiction." Say what your character is doing in game-world-terms (e.g. "I'm smothering the flames with my cloak to extinguish them") and then the DM, with input from the players, decides how to resolve that mechanically. In some cases, like attack rolls, the situation and mechanics are really clearly defined so there's seldom any debate. (Although there could be: do you "attack" the flames with your cloak?)

That your playstyle allows that is, as I've said several times now, fine. Great. Good. Enjoy yourself!

The dispute is that you think you can cite the spell description to explain/defend that...by ignoring half of what it says...and, simply, you can't. Because it says the exact opposite.

Is the term "examine" ever defined in D&D?

No. It doesn't need to be. The term Ability Check and Skill are clearly defined...and the spell description is clearly defined using those terms.

Do you have to look at the phantasm?

Once you fail the save, you believe it to be real...in your mind. I do not think whether you are looking at it or not matters once that save has been failed. Do you need to look at it to "examine with the Investigation skill"? Yes, I would say.

What if it's dark, can you touch it and feel around?

Assuming there was enough light to see it when you fail the initial save, I would guess so. Once you've failed the save, again, it is "real" to you.

What if it's an illusory medusa so you avert your gaze: does this prevent you from examining the phantasm?

Having failed the initial save, so you see a medusa in the first place and believe it to be real, then yes. Averting your gaze will prevent you from examining the phantasm with the investigation skill.

Suppose a player tries to attack the phantasm. Are they taking the attack action?

As the PC is assuming it to be real, Yes.

The phantasm isn't a creature or object, and has no AC or hit points. Is that player taking the Do Nothing action? ("I cast magic missile at the darkness!")

No. You are taking a real [Attack] action on a perceived real foe. The illusion (with some concentration) reacts accordingly. Hence the whole point/danger/distraction of illusion spells.

I think that what constitutes "use an action to examine" is up to the DM's discretion.

Just so. And as I've said, that's all wine and roses for your table. But you can not point to the rules, spell description, or anything in the system to say "this is justified by what's in the book." It is simply "using rulings over rules" preference...and that's great!

Because I'm a lenient DM I'd assume that in the case of an illusion, attempting to do something to it could involve examining it. Maybe putting out the flames by stop-drop-and-roll doesn't count because you're not paying much attention; while pouring water on the flames implies that you are looking right at them to decide how to best pour the water... and when you notice that the water isn't working very well, you get the Intelligence (Investigation) check.

You haven't really read the description, have you? It states that, as part of the spell, "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." Like jumping in water when you're on fire and the fire doesn't go out or falling through a phantasmal bridge. The player, who failed their save, still believe the fire/bridge to be real and comes up with some other reason, again, in their mind, why they continue to burn/have fallen.

I realize that I may have a looser criteria than many DMs, but, I don't think that it's outside the RAW... just on the edge.

And I'll simply continue to disagree with that and believe it is explicitly outside RAW, though could be on...or clinging to with two fingers...the very precipice of RAI. But it hardly matters what I believe for your table.

Rulings not rules. Have fun with it.

 

[steeldragons]

We are, [MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION], actually on the same page.

I value "rulings not rules." I believe the manuals are a set of guidelines. I encourage [consistent] interpretations and alterations, as makes the game fun for a given table.

But I do not believe one can point to text as defense of changes where the text clearly states the opposite. By all means, make changes! But OWN the changes for what they are! I can acknowledge that/when, "this is what the book says. But we're/I'm going to change it for -reasons." I encourage it!

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, KD, the PC rolling on the ground trying to put the illusory fire out is showing me that he's NOT got any doubt it's real fire. So, until he wakes up from the 0HP, he THINKS he is burning to death.

Doubt is a concept mostly relevant to earlier editions. All that matters here is that you are spending actions to interact with the illusion.