Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkwpeter" data-source="post: 7027234" data-attributes="member: 6804713">Just one question: Are you for or against asking for an INT (Investigation) check very early on? I read your post and agreed to your argumentation. At the end, I was surprised in the outcome, because I understand your wording that you would initiate the investigation of the illusion very quickly (e.g. after realizing that the bear takes no damage after hitting him a few times). Am I misunderstanding you? In general, there are two things I want to throw into the middle:1.)Fighting monsters:The question rasised, if the spell's target would notice that something weird is going on after attacking the illusionary creature a few times (maybe noticing it can't be hit or damaged). The rules explicitly state the option to create an attacking monsters. So, I would be surprised, if WotC would give an example of something that is only half valid and therefore trigger an investigation check. Otherwise they would have said so.Questions about "how to explain that the monster can't be hit or damaged" seem to be made up problems that are obsolete. The target rationalizes it in whatever way. Full stop. I think, there is no need to make things more complicated than they are. In advance, keep in mind that the target doesn't have to attack the bear. It still can attack any other target. And it might even treat 1D6 damage not as the biggest thread. So, I don't believe that a 1D6 DOT effect is being liable to become game breaking. Therefore, I don't sse a need of an investigation check to nerf the spell.2.) Reasons for investigating the illusion:As a lot of your previous posts already say, the target rationalizes most of the inconsistencies. So, that can't be a reason to ask for an investigation check, because the creature/character wouldn't normally do this with other creatures/objects, etc. as well (as @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6857451" target="_blank">ThePolarBear</a> also said).Therefore, one possibility (perhaps not the only one) might lie in external influences - e.g. by other players/monsters. For example, companions could realize that the target is doing weird stuff and shout at him: "Hey, why are you fighting the air?" or "Move! Don't just stand there!". Dependend on the way they do that and the type of effect, this may take from one to a couple of rounds, until the creature believes them and starts investigating the illusion.To cut a long story short:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I think, the only logical way to legitimize an investigation check is, if the target has doubts about the effect. Otherwise it wouldn't investigate it, because it wouldn't do so in other situations (e.g. in a real fight, or with real objects).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The problem is, that these doubts raise very hard, because the target rationalizes everything itself. If that wouldn't be absolutely intended than the spell wouldn't say so.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Therefore there are only a very few valid reasons to trigger a check. One of them could be given by external influences.</li> </ul>Closing:Regardless of the illusionary effect (attacking monster, status effect, object), I don't see this spell to be game breaking anymore. Yes, it's versatile. But neither its damage (1D6/round) nor its distraction / crowd control options (e.g. a fire cage) are too bad in comparism with other level 2 spells (e.g. Hold Person) - not even, if they are combined! In this topic, we talked a lot about restrictions. In the beginning there were people that allowed "chaining a creature" or making it "extinguish in a pool of illusionary water". Looking back, a lot of these improper usages have been corrected. In the end, there will always be some parts/usages that rely on DM's discretion. But in my view, the spell doesn't appear to be broken as it was before this discussion.Regards</blockquote>

Verification