Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7029837" data-attributes="member: 6857451">Yes, but you know that if interacting with an illusion does trigger rationalization, how do you investigate it? That's the conondrum. If you fail at investigating you are clearly also rationalizing everything you "learned" in your investigation. If you succeed, you realize it's an illusion... how? How are you not rationalizing? Are you not interacting with the illusion in some way?I know it's a mechanic and fluff is secondary, but it relies on the disconnection between player and character to work, something that's not 100% present as assumed by the books in my game and won't work as written. It still ends up working more or less the same way: Either the player ignores the illusion and then there's no roll or the player interacts with the illusion somehow and it gets the description of what happens and, if an action was spent, the request for a roll.I think yours is an interpretation. Your has some part of the text to support your view (the target interacting with the phantasm.)Mine is not really an interpretation of the text and more a ruling on the spell. I have not much in the way of text to point out other than the rationalization bit and that actually simply looking at something happening is enough to call "interacting", since you are recieving "updates". But again, it's totally fine to see outside sources as a way to have a foothold to investigate.Absolutely not a broken spell anyway. And not really a question about if the person next to you won't be able to raise doubts about the actual existance of the illusion (people get scammed every day IRL, and that's pretty much convincing someone of something not real of being real, i see the opposite being very possible), it's the check itself nonsensical. You interact with the illusion and rationalize every illogical outcome. So, how do you realize that's an illusion? Mechanically, via check.Fluff... you realize that's an illusion because something tells you "that's not real", going exactly opposite to what the spell says.For me, it has to go between the "interaction" and the "rationalization" of the check at least. But i'm 100% sure you got it the first time i said it, so i'm just repeating myself and not bringing anything new on the table <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" />It's totally fine to go for a different approach (a more RAW like, possibly, like yours seems to be)Just a small thing: Gelatinous cubes do move. Well, they CAN move, so probably would.Why would those break tho? The target can't change the illusion: It can't make a bear become a cat anymore than he can break the chains, both physically and mentally. Even the caster can't change the illusions (specific abilities being exceptions).Also, the chains breaking is something that would make an illogical outcome logical, not a rationalization of an illogical outcome. That's not how the spell works.There's no saving throw to dibelieve since any illogical outcome from interacting with the box gets rationalized right away. The only way to get rid of the spell once the first saving throw has been failed is to spend an action investigation the illusion and rolling a INT (investigation) check against spell DC. And the servant can't really do anything... the box is not there in the first place!</blockquote>

Verification