Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7026365" data-attributes="member: 6857451">Not a mother language speaker here too. So we are on the same page. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I thought about stating "directly" affecting something. But that should make an exception for "causing damage or other possible psychical effects" that coud result from such an interaction. Seeing a gigantic rock rolling towards a target while them have no way to get to safety would deal 1d6 psychic damage and make them at the very least wet their pants <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I think that the shock would be real, even if fleeting, until the moment that the creature realizes that it's all over and that life goes on.I know that what i described is not the "direct" you meant. But - reading it in a vacuum - might still be misinterpreted, even under the "status effect" part of the explanation should not relate to the "damage" part of the spell.I think "no, that can't happen" for a couple of reasons:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You can't interact physically with the box. It's an imaginary construct, there's no physicality associated with it. You can't "physically" lift it, so you can't lift it. Not that i think you disagree with this, but it's important to establish this point. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are therefore experiencing something that's an illogical interaction. What happens when you experience something like that created by PF? You rationalize the inconsistent behavior. You are not rationalizing an inconsistent behavior, you are making the behavior consistent. That's not how the spell says such interactions are managed. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are changing the nature of the illusion. You have no such power. The illusion of a box standing beside your foot will not change if you kick it. The box will not fly away. It won't break if you smash it with a sledgehammer. You can't "physucally" interact with it, and you have no control over that illusion mentally other than realizing that it's an illusion. </li> </ul>In your interpretation the spell IMHO is basically gutted for everything except for area denial and even thet is iffy. There's a creature? I kill it. One swing, dead, since that's what happens when i swing at something and that something gets beheaded. That creature is attacking me? Well, let's see if it MISSES, because obviously a bear has to hit me to damage me, right? What statistics does that creature have?So what do i, caster, gain for casting this spell? Mostly i waste the person action IF something else doesn't happen that makes the illusion useless before my target turns and IF my target fails the save. That's worse than every 2nd level control spell, prehaps excluding Crown of Madness, and flat out worse than every damage spell (and probably already is since it requires a lot of turns to ramp up the damage)And [MENTION=6804713]lkwpeter[/MENTION] too, since it's related to "auto triggering" a check.It's, for me, converting the action of "investigating something" (that would not make sense if the target is already convinced in the existance of the illusion as part of "reality" so strongly that is rationalizing falling from an illusionary bridge that can't support its weight since it's an illusion as "there was wind so strong that catapulted me out" as a possible explanation) as the action of "interacting with something and therefore having an inconsistent result out of it and seeing if i rationalize or not". I'm not going to spend an action "examining" the bear that's mauling me, following me, it's totally a bear and sheep i'm bleeding oh please make it stop. I'm going to strike the bear or try to stop it from mauling me with arms and armor and stones if i have them, each time incurring in the inconsistency "the bear is not affected in the slightest and passes through all my defences".I am investigating the bear. I'm poking it, smelling it, possibly tasting it if i also try to bite it in an attempt to defend myself. I'm declaring an action that's not POSSIBLE, normally, for me to declare since i do not know i HAVE the possibility to declare it in the first place. I do not have the knowledge to do so. I see a bear, and the bear is there. I'm the only one that can see the bear but, for all i know, i'm the one that's right and everyone else is wrong. I have wounds that prove it. I'm feeling pain.I firmly believe that it's in the intent of 5e to have less if no "action wasting" - i see also the various rules and rulings for not wasting spells if targets are not valid as a confirmation on that belief. I might be totally wrong and there are cases when actions DO go to waste, but it's usually after a conscious decisipon of a player to risk it.That's why for me the "investigating" the illusion should be taken as the broadest range of meaning. As "Interacting". I know, not what's written, but it think it's more in line that way. Obviously, all rights reserved to change depending on the situation.</blockquote>

Verification