Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7023795" data-attributes="member: 6857451">I thought about it a bit. I don't think that i like this conclusions. I agree with them, i just do not like the wording. Can't really find a better way to put them, tho. It's mostly the "physically affect" that doesn't ring 100% correct. Also, it's not really only about objects, creatures for example can't trample the target, no matter how much one likes creating illusions of bulls when the target is dressed in red. Possibly "The illusion requires physical interaction to obtain the desired effect (manacles co restrict movement)" and on the other side "the illusion lures the target to interact with it physically (a bridge to be stepped on)"? I like the "motivate" part a lot... again, do not really like the first.(sorry for the freeform "stream of consciousness". Not really intended but wrote ideas on the go and it's hopefully readable and understandable)But the spell can't change. You can't douse illusionary flames - that's the source of the inconsistency and rationalizing it means explaining why it was not doused, not "that it was doused". With chains you clearly should not have been able to move because that's what chains normally do. Rationalizing with "well those where broken" or "well those broke" it's not rationalizing. There would have been no inconsistency and there would be no spell remaining. At that point it would have been better to stop the spellcaster from casting in the first place, prehaps explaining why that would not work. In the end combat is not really in turns and explaining that "You see, the creature is constantly moving. It's already dodging the attacks of your companions, sidestepping, turing around to check the surroundings. There's no way that the creature won't realize that movement is not really impeded and rationalize as "chains are broken", nullifying the intended effect of your spell. If i can suggest, try to envision something that instead of blocking physically tries to lure the creature to act in a way you want. Or prehaps go for the good old scary and angry bear that claws its way in the target flesh."I do not really think it's so. Hold Person is limited in type but completely shuts that target down in a way that Phantasmal Force simply can't do, giving a lot of advantages. Suggestion duration is incredible and only has a single save, even if it's limited by language and the fact that is a charming effect. Blindness/Deafness does not require concentration and is only Verbal, even if it's half the range. Some of those spells scale with level, too. The short end of the stick is Crown of Madness, even if it has double the range. I dunno, never really liked the spell at all... it seems like Witch Bolt of the 2nd level. I might just be biased however.The fact that there's no save each turn is balance with the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean much. As i read it any real attempt to interact with the illusion that causes possible "situations" like the box on the head are actions spent to investigate the illusion. This might leave a creature still partially functional from round 1. Blindness always has a round at least of full efficacy.PF is way more flexible but also way more DM dependant that any of the other spells. It's strong, no doubt, but if i want to shout down a humanoid Hold Person is better, against a caster Blindness can do wonders, Suggestions is all around useful, Crown of Madness suc... err... has double the range (i guess?) and if there's a very big humanoid it can be prehaps be worth considering (i guess?)</blockquote>

Verification