Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkwpeter" data-source="post: 7024057" data-attributes="member: 6804713">In my opinion, trying to get rid of the chains and investigating the spell via an INT (Investigation) check are absolutely two different pair of shoes:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Let's regard the example of the bridge given in the rules: The target falls through it. Afterwards it still believes that the bridge exists and comes up with some other explanation for its fall (it was pushed, it slipped, or a strong wind might have knocked it off). If the target knows this place like the back of its hand and might just have been there a few hours ago (when there was no bridge at all), it would surely investigate it via an INT (Investigation) check before stepping on it. So, as a DM, the most important question is when to call for such a check. As I said before, the most logical way would be to ask yourself, if the illusion is backed up with enough evidence to not arouse the target's suspicion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">On the other hand, there is nowhere written that the target makes a DEX check or whatever, trying to balance over something that isn't there. And that's actually the point. You can't ask for a STR check, to clarify whether or not the creature successfully frees itself from chains that are not existent. There is simply nothing you could achieve with strength. The only way to get rid of that illusion is an INT (Investigation) check. The rules are very clear about that.</li> </ol>Yes, the illusion can move with the target (Jeremy Crawford). So, you could create manacles around each hand. BUT: You can neither bind the target's hands together nor bind it to a wall/object to physically hinder it from moving. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To bind the target's hands together you would need to move the hands into a specific position, what is not part of the spell. Even if this would be possible, one hand would go through one of the manacles, if the target moves it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To bind a creature to a wall/object (with the intention of physically hinder it from moving), the chains would need hold the target. And that's not possible. You could create a chain of a specific distance for each hand (so you wouldn't have to move hands together). But the moment, the target moves out of the chain's range, the target gets free. The creature would in some way rationalize that, but it would be free, because the object just ended. It's important to notice that There is no check needed, because the target still believes that the chains are real. It's like moving past or falling through the bridge. In addition, it would still have to make an INT (Investigation) check to reveal the spell.</li> </ul>To be honest, I don't see this interpretation to be far away from the example given in the spell's description (and Jeremy Crawford's Tweets). In my view, this is just an analogous application of it.Furthermore, I can only repeat: Yes, I find this spell flexible. But it's also very well balanced under the discussed circumstances/restrictions.</blockquote>

Verification