Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6490997" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well, yes. By your saying the spell description does not require an action (like Search), when making an ability[skill] check is your action, is a dispute/being disputed. You said, "the spell doesn't say..." when the spell, actually, does.Except, we're not. I am not disputing that is what the spell description says. I am disputing that you want to look at one piece of it and ignore the other and not just any other, but the actual remainder of the very same sentence. It is...baffling.That your playstyle allows that is, as I've said several times now, fine. Great. Good. Enjoy yourself!The dispute is that you think you can cite the spell description to explain/defend that...by ignoring half of what it says...and, simply, you can't. Because it says the exact opposite.No. It doesn't need to be. The term Ability Check and Skill are clearly defined...and the spell description is clearly defined using those terms.Once you fail the save, you believe it to be real...in your mind. I do not think whether you are looking at it or not matters once that save has been failed. Do you need to look at it to "examine with the Investigation skill"? Yes, I would say.Assuming there was enough light to see it when you fail the initial save, I would guess so. Once you've failed the save, again, it is "real" to you.Having failed the initial save, so you see a medusa in the first place and believe it to be real, then yes. Averting your gaze will prevent you from examining the phantasm with the investigation skill.As the PC is assuming it to be real, Yes.No. You are taking a real [Attack] action on a perceived real foe. The illusion (with some concentration) reacts accordingly. Hence the whole point/danger/distraction of illusion spells. Just so. And as I've said, that's all wine and roses for your table. But you can not point to the rules, spell description, or anything in the system to say "this is justified by what's in the book." It is simply  "using rulings over rules" preference...and that's great!You haven't really read the description, have you? It states that, as part of the spell, "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." Like jumping in water when you're on fire and the fire doesn't go out or falling through a phantasmal bridge. The player, who failed their save, still believe the fire/bridge to be real and comes up with some other reason, again, in their mind, why they continue to burn/have fallen.And I'll simply continue to disagree with that and believe it is explicitly outside RAW, though could be on...or clinging to with two fingers...the very precipice of RAI. But it hardly matters what I believe for your table. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Rulings not rules. Have fun with it.</blockquote>

Verification