Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7029123" data-attributes="member: 6857451">[MENTION=6804713]lkwpeter[/MENTION]<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#sblock" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#sblock" target="_blank"></a>[sblock]I'm in for making a player roll for investigation if said player spends an Action interacting in some way with the illusion, if said interaction provides some sort of "examination". Attacking it, trying to break free of it, stuff like that. So yeah, i'm in for having the check done een on the first action possible.This however depends also on how one plays their game with their group. A full open group has no problem with any of this since the first thing the DM would say is "you are under PF now, you see this and that. Take x damage". Such a group relies on trust and ability of players and DM to play in a way that can be consistent with the separation of player and character knowledge (and trust the various members at the table to act accordingly) or simply does not care about that and has fun anyway. In both cases the problem is not there to begin with.This is the solution i found that works for me and my players, since we play with informations given via descriptions and not directly stated where possible. As such is important for me to have a way to make the player understand what's going on and how to "get out of it", and this way we found to be a way we like - "OOOoooh i see! It's an illusion then, my character is under a spell and this is how you end the effect...". It can change according to preferences exactly how one can use open rolling or DM hidden rolls.Absolutely. The problem i have with the spell is that in fact the target rationalizes every inconsistency, every illogic interaction. Even "they can't see it and are telling me that itìs not there" gets rationalized. There's nothing that does not fit the bill, so there must be a reason for the existance of the check and the ability of a player to ask one. The player should know that the spell is there, but make a character act without such a knowledge. My "interaction means investigation" clears the DM of any possible problem of "it wouldn't investigate!" that might crop up while letting the DM be free to ignore the illusion should that be the logical thing to do anyway. It also allows the playstyle of my table to go on.External influences are still illogical outcomes. They still get rationalized. If i were to tell you "that cellphone on the table isn't real" would you believe me or not? You would check the phone, right? And rationalize that your hand goes through or whatever. What's the difference between a sword and your hand? You are rationalizing anyway. Rationalizing illogical outcomes makes investigating impossible, everything would end up "ok", no matter how wrong it really is. If a player knows your character is under a spell then it CAN take an action, that gets narrate however one pleases, to identify the illusion. If a player does not know or has to make so that the disbelieving is "acceptable" there must be something to have that knowledge across. I found the way that works for me.A little thing: For my view there's a window of opportunity for such check to be made the moment an Action is spent in a way that triggers an illogical outcome with the illusion (objective: try to avoid wasted actions/many other benefits cons: Many).If you prefer to work with external influences: Perfectly fine <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" />Happy to have been useful if you found my comments to be of some worth <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" />Have a nice game and have fun![/sblock] [MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION][sblock]Con? I suppose you meant Wis? Hold Person is Wisdom, as is Suggestion. B/D is Con, but in the part you quoted there was no mention of it.Because you do not create a full body force field, but the illusion of a full body force field. The target can see, hear, smell, taste and recieves tactile feedback on the proprieties of said field (does it make your hair rise since it is electric in nature? Is it hot? Cold? Is it smooth?) but it does not exists and cannot impede or support physical actions.An illusory bridge can't hold a person on it.An illusory sword won't cut.An illusory force field will not contain anything.The target will know that there's a force field and that said force field would normally hold him so tight to be paralyzed, but that does not happen. And proceeds to rationalize this illogical result.Only HP does that. Phantasmal Force doesn't. At most, it forces some sort of sensorial impedment (blind due to bag on the head) or provokes a reaction on the target that might be what you had in mind when creating the illusion (like stopping a person running towards you creating a pool of lava on the floor). The reaction the target has, however, depends on what the caster creates and how the target can in the end do: you can create the illusion of a bridge on a chasm you just crossed to have one of your pursuers try to step on it and fall. If your pursuer can fly, however, why use the bridge in the first place? "Yeah, it's there, i can still fly."Same for Suggestion. It has the ability to remove a fighter from a fight but it depends on the situation: during a taver brawl a suggestion like "just stop fighting and leave. It's not worth risking injuries over something this small" is very likely to be considered reasonable, while the same in the lair of a dragon is not going to be valid, if cast on a Dragon defending its hoard. Different schools of specialization for once. Second because each does something different in different situations. Phantasmal Force is versatile but it's weaker than any other spell in each of every other spell in regards to what that spell does. Also, PF does not scale with slot level.Basic real manacles. Illusionary manacles it's impossible,at least physically, if the illusion is "manacles on the wrists". This does not mean that those manacles can restrict the target in any way unless the target restricts himself for some reason (like going prone if he believes there's a cloud of gas above his head, or choosing not to move if inside a cage). No one forces the target to take any action in a way that would constrict himself - he does so because he belives that's the best course of action, until proven otherwise (like trying to check if those manacle restrict his movement in any way)... that only deal 1d6 of damage, since said field is not going to stop anyone to try and find themselves able to move on turn 1 which is not even a roll - no one was ever really impeded.How do i deal with it instead of having an action "wasted"? Your attempt to free yourself ended with you learning something about the effect - you examined it. You roll to see if you rationalize or realize what's happening. In the end, you spent your action investigating the effect if you spent an action in some way interacting with the illusion.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification