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

[Celebrim]

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.

I read this similarly, but don't believe that it requires a specific declared 'attempt to disbelieve' action. I read the spells as disbelief is now a consequence and not a prerequisite. As long as you spend an action interacting with the spell, you are entitled to an investigation check to observe that it isn't real.

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.

Agreed, but trying to put yourself out in some fashion in my opinion counts as 'trying to get rid of it'. It's not free - you spent the action. The difference is that my interpretation would not require meta-knowledge by the player, "This is probably an illusion." Simply interacting IC even in the absence of meta-information would result eventually in the in game realization, "This is an illusion."

 

[SirAntoine]

If the spell description ever creates confusion, I suggest referring to one of the earlier editions, which often have clearer writing and more detail. You can also redesign the phantasmal killer spell yourself. Just start an index card and keep it in the book.

 

[aramis erak]

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

Thanks.

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.

does not appear to be.

The damage, note, is not an automatic. The illusion has to be of something that does damage. Given the 10' cube limit... an archer is no threat to him; the arrows never hit. The 4-armed swordsman with 7 attacks would likely provoke disbelief from the low damage. A bonfire won't hurt him if he moves away from it. If it's an umber hulk, the limited damage again is going to be an issue. An orc with a dagger, however...


And if the bonfire chases him, yeah, he's probably entitled to a bonus action to investigate it.

The Orc need not be investigated, but can be killed.

This is because...

While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. (PHB 264)​

If he cannot drop the orc after about 20 HP, he should be granted a bonus action to examine it. Because real Orcs usually die by then.

 

[77IM]

Hmmm, steeldragons, I feel like I'm not communicating clearly.

I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an action. In fact, spending an action is kind important to my thesis: if the character blows a precious turn doing something ineffective to the phantasm, maybe they should get SOME small benefit out of it, like a chance to notice that something is wrong (but only if their action involved looking closely at the phantasm, because otherwise that wouldn't make sense).

I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an ability check. I left off the second half of that sentence for brevity, precisely because it didn't impact my argument: yes, of course you make the ability check, and I wasn't disputing that so I didn't include it. But maybe that made my argument unclear. I've added the rest of that sentence to my original post.

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

Just so.

Does "just so" mean "that's right"?

I mean, I think we can all agree that if the player says, "I use an action to examine the summoned demon" then they get to make the Int (Investigation) check to see through the illusion.

But what if the player says, "I look at the summoned demon carefully." Or how about, "What's up with this demon? Can I make some sort of ability check to learn more?" Or how about, "Is there any way for me to get past the demon?" Or how about, "Crapola, I put over 150 points of damage into that thing and it isn't going down! How hurt is it?" Or how about, "I carefully line up my aim and let fly one of my precious +1 arrows!" Or how about, "Is there any chance this thing could be an illusion instead of a summoned monster?"

Any of those could be actions, and could involve enough "examination" to warrant the Int check. I think the rules explicitly let the DM decide, so if our decisions differ, that's not really a RAW vs. house rules issue.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm going to throw in a different but related question.

If I cast phantasmal force on someone in a dark room, and create the illusion of fire, what does the person see in the "illusory" light?

(If it was a normal illusion, I'd say the light's real; light is light. But this is all in the target's mind.)

 

[steeldragons]

Whatever the caster wants. There's 10' cubed to work with. So, whatever the caster decides to reveal within that 10 feet/5' radius (?) of the flame's light.

If nothing, then I suppose the target gets a fire, visible flames, surrounded in darkness.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I read this similarly, but don't believe that it requires a specific declared 'attempt to disbelieve' action. I read the spells as disbelief is now a consequence and not a prerequisite. As long as you spend an action interacting with the spell, you are entitled to an investigation check to observe that it isn't real.

That is true for illusions like silent image (which don't have an initial saving throw, and ONLY get a save when interacted with), but is not the case for phantasms like phantasmal force (which get an initial saving throw BECAUSE you're not permitted one simply by interacting with it). When the character falls through the bridge, they don't get an immediate save. They need to spend their action to investigate the illusion (and do nothing else). It's one of the advantages of the higher-level spell effect -- someone can't disbelieve it simply by interacting with it.

Agreed, but trying to put yourself out in some fashion in my opinion counts as 'trying to get rid of it'. It's not free - you spent the action.

Putting yourself out is getting rid of the fire, not investigating the illusion. You might begin to suspect after trying (and failing) to put yourself out that it is an illusion.

The difference is that my interpretation would not require meta-knowledge by the player, "This is probably an illusion." Simply interacting IC even in the absence of meta-information would result eventually in the in game realization, "This is an illusion."

My interpretation doesn't require any player knowledge. It is in-character to imagine that the flames consuming you might be an illusion when your friend tells you you're not on fire. It is in-character to imagine they might be an illusion when you jump in some nearby water and they still burn. It is in-character to think of reasons why what is happening to you might not be real (you live in a world of magic where sometimes the man muttering strange words makes people believe things that aren't true, after all). When that happens, you spend an action to investigate it, and get to make a check. Simply jumping in the water or having your friend tell you that doesn't let you make the check.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm going to throw in a different but related question.

If I cast phantasmal force on someone in a dark room, and create the illusion of fire, what does the person see in the "illusory" light?

(If it was a normal illusion, I'd say the light's real; light is light. But this is all in the target's mind.)

His mind would make up the stuff he "sees" within the 10 foot cube area of effect. "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm."

So if his buddy walks into the area and he cannot see or hear his buddy, he does not see him. If his buddy suddenly makes noise, he may see his buddy (if the noise told him who it was), or he may see a monster or something else (if the noise did not identify the person who made it).

Outside the area of effect, it would be dark, so he would not see anything there.

This is like eye witness testimony. The mind fills in the gaps, but only within the area of effect.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Hmmm, steeldragons, I feel like I'm not communicating clearly.

I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an action. In fact, spending an action is kind important to my thesis: if the character blows a precious turn doing something ineffective to the phantasm, maybe they should get SOME small benefit out of it, like a chance to notice that something is wrong (but only if their action involved looking closely at the phantasm, because otherwise that wouldn't make sense).

I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an ability check. I left off the second half of that sentence for brevity, precisely because it didn't impact my argument: yes, of course you make the ability check, and I wasn't disputing that so I didn't include it. But maybe that made my argument unclear. I've added the rest of that sentence to my original post.


Does "just so" mean "that's right"?

I mean, I think we can all agree that if the player says, "I use an action to examine the summoned demon" then they get to make the Int (Investigation) check to see through the illusion.

But what if the player says, "I look at the summoned demon carefully." Or how about, "What's up with this demon? Can I make some sort of ability check to learn more?" Or how about, "Is there any way for me to get past the demon?" Or how about, "Crapola, I put over 150 points of damage into that thing and it isn't going down! How hurt is it?" Or how about, "I carefully line up my aim and let fly one of my precious +1 arrows!" Or how about, "Is there any chance this thing could be an illusion instead of a summoned monster?"

Any of those could be actions, and could involve enough "examination" to warrant the Int check. I think the rules explicitly let the DM decide, so if our decisions differ, that's not really a RAW vs. house rules issue.

I think the disconnect is that under some reading you are allowing a character to take two actions: an attack and an ability (Investigate) check as one unified action. Typically using a skill requires an action, and here you are in effect allowing for a "passive" Investigation check (yet probably allowing for the check to be rolled). The spell description suggests a non-passive check though, rolling a d20 and adding your Investigate modifier, and that takes an action by itself, separate from the Attack action.

I have no strong feeling on the question, and I would agree with your assessment if you used the passive Investigate score (which is references as being a "thing" in the Observant feat description).

I do wonder if I your players fought a foe using Disguise Self, would their attacks be enough for them to uncover the illusion? On this theory I would think they should be.

 

[Penguizilla]

Hold Person Substitute

Could a caster cause the victim to imagine that bladed chains suddenly erupted from the ground and completely engulfed them? Thus allowing for damage and restraining, if not paralyzing, the target? What would you think of an automatic investigation check to escape every round with that or would they still need to stop struggling and specifically investigate the chains?