Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7021273" data-attributes="member: 6857451">Absolutely not game changing, i agree. I find it's just more consistent to rule it that way for any illusion that does not specifically allow such a change. It helps avoiding possible problems.It is impossible to restrain physically a person with an illusion. It's not however force it to make her believe to be restrained. If you allow the bucket on the head - blindness - then you should consider that the illusion somewhat follows the person in his movements - a creature in combat or... well... pretty much always is in motion - and said motion would VERY likely make the person see the flying bucket from the outside, causing a rationalization of what happened, even before his turn could come up. That, or the "chains at feet/hands" behave in the same way: Until out of the area, the chains would follow. There's no resistance - well, minimal: there is tactile feedback - but the fact that the chains are still there should follow as much as the bucket should follow.That is why i proposed "red hot chains" and not common chains. The idea is to cause what would be the most normal reaction: Take the chains off since those are searing hot. It's  a check to see throug the illusion? Ok, good. It's still 1d6 damage and the possibility to somewhat control what the person would do. If said chains are at the feets, it's very likely for that person to be panicking on the ground trying to take the chains off since "those things hurt".By the way: Still my opinion. Most likely the spell was intented as an "area denial", since the effect is limited in a 10 by 10 cube and even the damage can't extend more than 5' outside said area. I just prefer giving a little freedom to a player to come up with something nice ("spice it up and it's ok for me") while still having some limits to adhere to (number of items, creatures, no disappear when there's no text for that and so on). Make your intent clear, short 1 - 2 of "can i?"  "too much, prehaps this?" "Yes/no". My table can make it work but i can see how other tables might not be able to for a whole lot of reason (and none of those being bad players/bad dm)edit: I can see the point made. It would not change the outcome to have a small cage with many pointy edges. While the creature is really not going to be kept inside between the appearing of the cage and his turn it would probably try not to move uncautiously to avoid being impaled. Even with a sword falling on them. "It's not going to be able to strike me from that angle, it's going to hit the cage! Oh my, i'll have to pay attention to possible vibrations or movements of the cage!!!"It's really about what you place as limits and how much you want the illusion to screw up with the person. An illusionary pool of lava would not burn the person, but the person would still believe to be burning. A bear would still maul the person, a ringing bell would still ring. Why manacles should just slip off?Isn't that a little bit too much for "an object" ? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /></blockquote>

Verification