D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now it is indeed true that both checks are Int checks, so a creature with a low Int is very susceptable, however, that said, imagine a creature with a 10 Int, with no investigation proficency, against a 3rd level caster with a 16 Int. That is a DC of 13 if I'm not mistaken. 2 chances at +0 to defeat DC 13 if we are to crunch the math is 64% in other words, 36% for the spell to stick. If opponent has an 8 Int (-1), that becomes a 58%. If Int is 6 then 51%. In other words, against a very, very low Int creature, it's basically a coin toss for the spell to work at all. That's my concern with the spell. It's not that it's an Int save, it's like an Int save with advantage.

It's better than that, because it's easier to penalize ability checks than saving throws, e.g. via Cutting Words--and besides, investigating still burns an action in one way or another.

For a 13th level PC going up against an Adult Red Dragon, if the PC has a DC of 18, then the Red Dragon's +3 to Int rolls gives it a 70% chance of failing the initial save, and then a 70% chance of failing the Int (Investigation) check, so a 49% chance of being fully affected (barring use of Legendary Resistance). That compares favorably with its 50% chance of making a Wisdom save (next weakest save) against e.g. Slow, and a 50% chance of the Slow wearing off in the next round. (49% vs. 25% chance to affect it for more than one round.) That 49% approaches 70% if there's a Lore Bard around with Cutting Words to penalize the dragon's Investigation check by d10.

 

[jgsugden]

Phantasmal Force is a tough nut. If you read the text in full, that second die roll shouldn't get used much.

If you cast it and the target fails the int save, it is under the spell. When affected, the target sees the phantasm, believes it is real, and rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. They are convinced it is real. As such, they have no reason to examine and investigate the phantasm to determine if it is real. Baring someone telling them to do so, the target's ability to investigate the phantasm with an action should go unused because the target has no reason to use it given their conviction that the phantasm is real. Even if they're told to investigate the phantasm, the target needs to decide whether to follow the advice or if it is more likely that the threat before them is real and the advice is misguided... which probably the more likely result to them as they are convinced the phantasm is real and they'll rationalize away inconsistencies with the phantasm. Allies the understand the spell may be better served trying to convince the target to investigate the Phantasm for a different reason.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Phantasmal Force is a tough nut. If you read the text in full, that second die roll shouldn't get used much.

If you cast it and the target fails the int save, it is under the spell. When affected, the target sees the phantasm, believes it is real, and rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. They are convinced it is real. As such, they have no reason to examine and investigate the phantasm to determine if it is real. Baring someone telling them to do so, the target's ability to investigate the phantasm with an action should go unused because the target has no reason to use it given their conviction that the phantasm is real. Even if they're told to investigate the phantasm, the target needs to decide whether to follow the advice or if it is more likely that the threat before them is real and the advice is misguided... which probably the more likely result to them as they are convinced the phantasm is real and they'll rationalize away inconsistencies with the phantasm. Allies the understand the spell may be better served trying to convince the target to investigate the Phantasm for a different reason.

Rules text:

The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends.

Your point is acknowledged; but I believe that it leads to a better game to treat any attempt to interact with the illusion as an Investigation attempt instead always requiring a specific "I disbelieve!" action, and from an optimizer's perspective I think it's important to know that the spell is still pretty good even if your DM rules this way.

Dragon: "I try to rip the archwizard to shreds!" [three attacks later] "Hey, the archwizard dodged all my attacks. Something feels wrong about this..." [DM rolls Intelligence (Investigation) for dragon, makes it] "Aha! Illusion!"

I feel like THAT is something which would be possible to DM fairly. Compare to the other way:

Dragon: "I try to rip the archwizard to shreds!" [three attacks later] "The archwizard dodged all my attacks! He's just standing there smirking at me. Better try again before he casts a big spell!"

or

Dragon: "I disbelieve the just-teleported-in archwizard, on the off chance that it happens to be an illusion, despite the fact that this will give him the chance to cast a big spell if he's real!"

Neither of those alternatives seems like the kind of game I want to be running, so I might as well make it easy on myself and rule that an action spent taking the illusion seriously also constitutes "examining" the illusion and therefore getting a chance to perceive its falsehood.

 

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Hi SpoCk0nd0pe. You say in your initial post "Seems like no save, just suck and take (not huge amounts but ok-ish) damage for a lot of creatures"

I don't read it that way. To quote the spell:

"On a failed save, you create a phantasmal object, creature or other visible phenomenon of your choice..."

In other words, if the save is successful, nothing happens. Now if the first save fails...

"with an Int (investigation) check gainst your spell DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes the phantasm is an illusion and the spell ends."

Now I agree with you, that if the first save fails, then the investigation check fails, the target is pretty hooped. However, that requires 2 failed "saves" (one is a save, the other an ability check).

Getting 2 chances to avoid the effects of one spell is not very good IMO. That said, if both checks are failed, I agree that creativiy can really screw the very unlucky target.

Now it is indeed true that both checks are Int checks, so a creature with a low Int is very susceptable, however, that said, imagine a creature with a 10 Int, with no investigation proficency, against a 3rd level caster with a 16 Int. That is a DC of 13 if I'm not mistaken. 2 chances at +0 to defeat DC 13 if we are to crunch the math is 64% in other words, 36% for the spell to stick. If opponent has an 8 Int (-1), that becomes a 58%. If Int is 6 then 51%. In other words, against a very, very low Int creature, it's basically a coin toss for the spell to work at all. That's my concern with the spell. It's not that it's an Int save, it's like an Int save with advantage.

Thank you for your reply!

Your example is not exactly what I thought about. I am too lazy to actually count the intelligence scores of monsters by CR but there really are a lot of very dangerous unintelligent (3 or less) monsters in the MM. If you look at an 18 int wizard at level 5, making even 2 Int saves vs a DC of 15 is not too likely. A 3 Int monster has a 21% chance to resist.

Don't forget that the spell states that it takes an action to investigate. So the affected creature has to spend actions for the chance to make an investigation check. Good luck Mr. T-Rex! Against the level 5 Wizard he has a 10% chance to make the save. On his rounds he can decide to spend an action to get another 10% chance to resist (if the DM decides the T-Rex actually gets the idea to investigate the suffocating Bag around his head in the middle of combat). This is why I said the spell almost seems like a no save just suck for a lot of creatures.

A curiosity about the MM is that Int scores do not seem to scale with level the same way other ability scores do until you reach very high levels. There are some Int monsters but they are really few. Most of them are stuck around 10 and the percentage of unintelligent monsters does not drop significantly. Int save proficiency also seems to be quite rare. So at higher levels, the spell gets even more tricky to avoid for many monsters. Even a 10 Int monster still has only 31% of a chance to make both saves against a level 9 Wizard with 20 Int.

From the Spell text:
While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. An affected target is so convinced of the phantasm's reality that it can even take damage from the illusion.

That's a really strong illusion! I would argue that most unintelligent creatures would not realise they are being tricked, so I think they would not necessarily get a second save.

I think the spell is somewhat situational but not necessarily more then other blue choices like e.g. Counterspell. It screws low int monsters (which are plenty in the MM) very reliably with a second level slot. At mid levels it is even decent against medium Int monsters.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now it is indeed true that both checks are Int checks, so a creature with a low Int is very susceptable, however, that said, imagine a creature with a 10 Int, with no investigation proficency, against a 3rd level caster with a 16 Int. That is a DC of 13 if I'm not mistaken. 2 chances at +0 to defeat DC 13 if we are to crunch the math is 64% in other words, 36% for the spell to stick. If opponent has an 8 Int (-1), that becomes a 58%. If Int is 6 then 51%. In other words, against a very, very low Int creature, it's basically a coin toss for the spell to work at all. That's my concern with the spell. It's not that it's an Int save, it's like an Int save with advantage.

In my opinion, evaluating save or suck spells should routinely be made at mid- to high level.

At low level, your save DC isn't anything special. It is still close to the baseline.

Evaluating any save-spell at low level ignores how your DC will steadily rise, while 5e monsters saves will not.

A spell like Hold Person (not gonna touch the Hypnotic Pattern discussion with a ten-feet pole) is borderline useless when you first get it at 3rd level. It is hugely expensive, as you have very few 2nd level slots. And the probability that the spell will stick simply isn't great.

Compare to a level 13 or 19 caster. You have plenty of low-level slots. Even if you upcast it, it will still be much cheaper than for the lvl 3 caster.

But more importantly, your DC which will be 17 or 19 or something will now be absolutely frightening.

In 5e, monsters generally doesn't become better at making saves.

Obvious exceptions excepted: targeting big brutes with Con saves; legendary creatures with legendary saves etc.

Just wanting to say that the fact you found the spell wanting is a tad misleading. EVERY save spell is a tad wanting at low level.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[smbakeresq]

Phantasmal Force is a tough nut. If you read the text in full, that second die roll shouldn't get used much.

If you cast it and the target fails the int save, it is under the spell. When affected, the target sees the phantasm, believes it is real, and rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm. They are convinced it is real. As such, they have no reason to examine and investigate the phantasm to determine if it is real. Baring someone telling them to do so, the target's ability to investigate the phantasm with an action should go unused because the target has no reason to use it given their conviction that the phantasm is real. Even if they're told to investigate the phantasm, the target needs to decide whether to follow the advice or if it is more likely that the threat before them is real and the advice is misguided... which probably the more likely result to them as they are convinced the phantasm is real and they'll rationalize away inconsistencies with the phantasm. Allies the understand the spell may be better served trying to convince the target to investigate the Phantasm for a different reason.

IMO that's why you should always have the phantasm be some creature attacking it, so its spends its actions attacking the phantasm and not trying to figure it out. Make the DM use some other creatures action to try and convince the affected creature that the phantasm in false so you burn 2 monster actions. Essentially RP the illusion for maximum affect. I like to use Gelatinous Cubes or a ooze or slime for the affect so the affected creature stays put and just tries to scrape it off. The bridge example in the spell is tough to pull off because you need to get the affected creature to come over the bridge somehow, however an illusion of food just on the other side might work. I did try a phantasm for a Medusa of being in a room full of mirrors once, it worked but the DM allowed a save on the second round because a Medusa would never have a mirror around.

BTW, if you attack the creature under the affect it will still see you and see you attacking it, then it becomes a prioritization issue. That might grant a save, depending on DM.

 

[raleel]

I think this last point illustrates where a certain class of spells really shines - when the character has a bit of knowledge about the target. The bridge works if you know something about the target you can use to lure him across, even if it is simple greed. The mirror trick failed because the player/character didn't factor in that no medusa would keep a mirror around.

My own game saw this in SKT when the frost Giants attacked Bryn Shander and announced their intend for Artus Cimber, then the bard hit them with a suggestion to go to Waterdeep, Cimber was there. Reasonable suggestion, because you had some idea of what they wanted.

it does point to the player trying to think like his adversaries a bit. Also provides he right player and the right GM an opportunity to enrich their campaign world with this sort of information.

 

[jgsugden]

Your point is acknowledged; but I believe that it leads to a better game to treat any attempt to interact with the illusion as an Investigation attempt instead always requiring a specific "I disbelieve!" action, and from an optimizer's perspective I think it's important to know that the spell is still pretty good even if your DM rules this way.

I understand why you'd consider ruling this way, but it is contrary to the text of the spell. An action must be chosen to be spent by the target, and the spell provides many reasons why the target shouldn't take that action due to the impact of the spell.

Note that this spell, even under the most liberal of interpretations, still has limits. The phantasm doesn't move to follow the target. If you make an archwizard, the dragon will believe it is real - but that doesn't mean the dragon will stand there and attack it every round and ignore the rest of the party. If you put a bag on a T-rex head (love that idea), the T-rex will be blind, but may attempt to thrash at PCs nearby blindly, anyways. The monster still behaves as intelligently as ever in the face of the phantasm.

The real value of the spell is the wide range of utility. I've created a phantasm and placed it right in front of an enemy - only to have that enemy decide that that it would be wiser to retreat from the phantasmal entity and deal with other foes. My phantasm just sat there. I've used the example straight from the book and made a phantasmal bridge that the enemy feel off of - twice. I've made phantasmal gold, paid someone with it, and then walked away (he was a bad, bad man). I've convinced a guard that he was trapped in a collapsed tunnel. As a DM, I used a phantasm on the party's scout to convince him that the edge of the cliff was 10 feet further out than it really was...

The thing to remember is that you're not just creating an illusion like you do with other illusion spells - you're implanting something into the mind of one target. You're messing with their perceptions *and* beliefs, explicitly. You're explicitly altering what they believe to be real to an extent where they make mental leaps to justify why something that doesn't make sense would make sense.

 

[stubblesmcgee]

I like reading these guides to see where I agree and disagree, but I really do not like the format. There is a lot of extraneous discussion for spells that nobody will ever take and the guides do not really guide you through the decision making processes we face as players. They consider elements of the class in isolation instead of placing them in the context of the decision making point when we must consider them. I'd rather see a wizard guide go through and discuss your options as you face them - character creation and then level by level advancement with discussion of how options selected relate to each other rather than placing feats in place, spells in another, etc...

I'm kind of wishing this was the case right now. This is my first time playing DnD in about 7 years, and I'm finding spell choice to be quite difficult as I level up. The good vs. bad format worked well early on, but now as I'm choosing 4th level spells, I'm beginning to wonder about redundancy. For example, I know that Evard's Black Tentacles and Watery Sphere are both good spells and that they do different things than Hypnotic Pattern, but they're all fundamentally battlefield control, right? Given that I have Hypnotic Pattern already (and other spells to lock down single monsters at lower levels), I have a hard time choosing either of the other 2 over spells that could do something fundamentally different (like say Polymorph or Greater Invisibility). It's tough for me to tell if I'm resting on my laurels or making good decisions, and a guide like this can only tell me how good or bad a spell is without the context of previous choice. But of course, that's probably too much to ask for from a guide.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I understand why you'd consider ruling this way, but it is contrary to the text of the spell. An action must be chosen to be spent by the target, and the spell provides many reasons why the target shouldn't take that action due to the impact of the spell.

Yes, my ruling is indeed contrary to the text of the spell. I'm fine with that--it's hardly the first time I've changed a rule. (E.g. I run Magic Resistance more like AD&D Magic Resistance--it works even against spells that don't allow a saving throw.) For purposes of this thread, my point is that even if your DM rules this way (as I think is not too unlikely) it is still a pretty good spell.

Note that this spell, even under the most liberal of interpretations, still has limits. The phantasm doesn't move to follow the target. If you make an archwizard, the dragon will believe it is real - but that doesn't mean the dragon will stand there and attack it every round and ignore the rest of the party. If you put a bag on a T-rex head (love that idea), the T-rex will be blind, but may attempt to thrash at PCs nearby blindly, anyways. The monster still behaves as intelligently as ever in the face of the phantasm.

I see nothing in the spell that restricts the phantasm from moving. As a DM, I'd rule that the phantasm acts in a manner consistent with the intentions of the spellcaster, subject to the limitations of its its form. If you create the phantasm of an air elemental, it will move up to 90' to attack the dragon each round. If you create the phantasm of a bag over a T-Rex's head, that bag will move as normal to stay on the T-Rex's head as it moves, just like a real bag would.

(T-Rexes aren't really the interesting case since they're unlikely to make the Int (Investigation) check anyway--but I didn't choose the example here. )

Edit: also, I don't think I would rule that the T-Rex is blind. Rather, I would rule that it rationalizes away the fact that it isn't blind in the same way it rationalizes away not taking much damage from a fire elemental--maybe it thinks there's a hole in the bag, or maybe it thinks it's just getting lucky on its attacks. The spell doesn't impose conditions--it mostly exists to shape behavior. Having it not actually be blinded seems most consistent with the intent and likely mechanism of a mental phantasm spell: something like a really intense delusion.