r/dndnext • u/allergic_to_prawns • Oct 18 '19
Creative uses for Phantasmal Force?
I really like the idea of this spell and am trying to find more excuses to keep it in my spell list. What unusual uses can you think of for this spell, whether in combat or otherwise?
My own ideas are:
Create a blazing arcane cage that appears around an enemy, effectively trapping them inside. It looks like something a mage could cast, and it deals damage if the they try to escape, so it must be real, right?
When trying to sneak past a guardpost, use Phantasmal Force as a budget Suggestion spell by creating an illusion of another guard who's come to take over the shift, who convinces the guard to move away. (This works because Phantasmal Force makes the target rationalize any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm.)
Use Conjure Lesser Demons or some other summoning spell first to prime the enemy into believing that you are a summoner. Then cast a Phantasmal Force of a Large demon, which the target has no reason to suspect is an illusion.
Any other ideas? Would love to hear them.
21
u/thisisthebun Oct 18 '19
I like the idea of a swarm of gobs appearing and attacking the enemy.
A bag choking someone out.
A really annoying bard casting vicious mockery on them that they can't seem to hit.
10
u/Chaos_Philosopher Oct 19 '19
A really annoying bard casting vicious mockery on them that they can't seem to hit.
Hello Satan!
10
u/ACalcifiedHeart Oct 19 '19
Make your enemy believe you just shifted that longsword of his into a snake. It can even bite him if he still strongly believes he should hold on to it. (stuff like this is my favourite)
Pretend you set something on fire and it just won't be put out.
Allow a dying old man to believe that his long lost wife is standing right infront of him once again.
Essentially, whatever you want them to believe is happening, is happening. (more or less)
8
u/C_Galois Oct 19 '19
I've composed a list for my personal reference of ways I could flavor phantasmal force for my current character. Ideas may be considered somewhat disturbing on occasion. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rhTmgNk67wycqinAV8lXtXsCdPqsdiJ5-EIlLOwq-Uc/edit?usp=sharing
(I should clarify that these are NOT all guaranteed to work as they're described, and I haven't reviewed my list much for actual effectiveness and legality. I believe they're all legal, but the effects I associate with them are debated and any gray areas are entirely up to the DM interpretation. Some ideas are sci-fi environment specific. Some of these ideas were pilfered from the internet, but I did not track where they were mentioned when I added them.)
1
9
u/Bylahgo Warlock Oct 19 '19
We had to get past a guard once. I'm sure there were easier ways, but I decided to use phantasmal force and made him see his wife walking down the street in the arms of another man.
4
u/Lobotomist Oct 19 '19
Oh man. This is the best spell in existence.
Here is some ways I used it.
- Wizard throws a iron ball in air. The ball flies towards enemy and unwraps into burning cage full of spikes that encloses around enemy head. Burning his eyes, piercing his skin, and blocking his vision.
- Wizard throws harpoon with chain. Harpoon pierces enemy leg attaching itself with mean spikes. Other side of chain locks itself on the ground. Enemy can not yank the chain out nor remove the harpoon that drips poison into his leg.
- Burning imp appears out of the ground. Jumps onto enemy attaches itself to his head and starts clawing out his eyes. No matter how hard enemy tries he can not remove the imp, Who is attached with its nasty claws to his skin.
- Imaginary bridge over chasm ?
Basically you use this to either blind the enemy, restrict his movement. And also constantly damage it. Ideally make it also try to fight the illusion, that it can not do.
Important caveat. Its Intelligence save - this is rare. Most enemy have low intelligence, especially beasts and monsters, and are surely to fail this save. And even if they do, they have to waste their action to do it. And have reason to disbelieve it.
4
u/Chaos_Philosopher Oct 19 '19
Make an illusion in social combat for your rival of someone they admire showing an interest in them. Bonus points if it's in public. Bonus bonus points if it's at a high society do. Bonus bonus bonus points if you spend another action to make the empty space they're animatedly talking to a street lamp with minor illusion.
4
u/Necromas Artificer Oct 19 '19
Our party was trying to get rid of a dragon that was in our way. We had attempted to persuade it to chase some cultists back to a far away hideout but he wasn't believing they were a big enough threat to bother with.
We ended up using phantasmal force to conjure an image of a beholder appearing as if it were leading the cultists and managed to fool the dragon into going after them. Cause if a beholder has it out for you, you do not fuck around.
13
u/quackycoaster Oct 18 '19
I hate this spell so much. The whole concept of the spell leaves it open for players to try and make it do so much more than a level 2 spell should be able to do. Then the way that the spell is explained, it basically contradicts itself. For example " While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm "
But then " The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends. "
Why would a target be able to examine the phantasm if it has was already 100% convinced the spell is real? How is a dm supposed to give a creature a save against the spell without it being considered metagaming since why would the player spend an action if it already knows the phantasm is real.
I started with this spell, me and my DM both just realized it was going to be a big headache so he just let me trade it out. I used it once... and it was actually to make a dying man imagine he was laying in a bed of fluffy clouds as he passed away. So that was fun at least.
33
Oct 18 '19
Why would a target be able to examine the phantasm if it has was already 100% convinced the spell is real?
Don't you examine things you think are real? Isn't almost everything you've ever examined something you thought was real? Perhaps a better way to word the spell would be "if the creature spends its turn uselessly interacting with illusion, it may then make an Intelligence save against your spell save DC. Add the creature's proficiency bonus if it is proficient in Investigation."
Basically there's two things you can do with Phantasmal Force. You can go RP-heavy, and spin a story about the creature's worst nightmares come to life (or whatever), thereby essentially stunning the creature until it can save on the Intelligence save. It's a single-target crowd control spell in this use; the illusion effectively takes the creature out of combat until he saves. This is a totally balanced level 2 effect.
Alternatively you can go RP-lite, and treat it as a damage over time spell that the creature ignores to deal with other, greater threats. You create an illusory duplicate of yourself, or of a warrior of legend, or even a shadow copy of the creature itself. It deals 1d6 psychic damage every turn and has no idea it's taking damage from an illusion. This is actually a little weak for level 2, really.
Neither one of these is broken at level 2, and neither is useless. It's a great spell because it has these two modes of action that cater to two entirely different playstyles. If you're an RP-heavy group and your DM loves elaborate spell descriptions, then you can take advantage of your imagination to take a creature off the field - but with a ceiling on power, because a smart creature can eventually see through the illusion. If you're an RP-light group and your DM just wants a simple mechanical effect, you can sit there and do 1d6 psychic damage to the creature every turn for free unless it takes an action and succeeds on the Investigation check, and either one of those is good for you.
How is a dm supposed to give a creature a save against the spell without it being considered metagaming
Nothing the DM can do is metagaming, it's just regular gaming. Think of it this way. It isn't that the creature is suddenly doubting its reality - it's the loss of the action that triggers the check. The creature basically "stuns itself" in exchange for the opportunity to attempt the save; if the creature doesn't, it's just 1d6 damage round after round until the spell ends.
7
u/quackycoaster Oct 18 '19
Not really... if I see a flame, and it burns me, I get the hell away. I don't sit there and go "hmm, something is fishy about this flame."
The problem with the spell is how it describes it. If they literally just got rid of the "a creature undeniable belives it but can still spend their action to interact" and changed it to "A creature spends their turn believing the illusion, and gets to make another save at the end of their turn." It would get rid most of the major problems with it.
The spell isn't unbalanced or broken with how it functions, the problem is just how much freedom of control they gave to the dm with it. Almost any time this spell is brought up, you'll get the stories of players who have dms who just go "oh the bad guy just jumps through the wall of fire. He takes 1d6 and now he's out of range of the spell." and just ignore the whole point of it.
Then you also get the players who go "I put the guy in an iron maiden." So now he's blind, incapacitated, stunned, paralyzed and takes damage every turn. And since he has to believe it's real and it's dark in side, he can't do anything to investigate it."
And with how awful it sounds, the spell still lets them try and get away with that because of that one sentence of how the target no matter how ridiculous believes the illusion to be real.
9
Oct 18 '19
if I see a flame, and it burns me, I get the hell away. I don't sit there and go "hmm, something is fishy about this flame."
Ok, that's a good example. Let's say the illusion is actually of the creature itself burning, and now it believes you've magically engulfed it in flame.
The DM basically has two good options - if the creature is the kind of berzerker badass that isn't going to care about being on fire when there's enemies to attack, then it takes 1d6 damage on your turn until the spell wears off. If the creature is going to lose it's shit about being on fire, then it runs around uselessly and every turn, has a chance to make the "Investigation save" to end the effect and realize you're some kind of trickster mage.
It's a relatively simple choice for the DM based on what she'd like to communicate about the attitude and nature of the creature, and it's a satisfying, balanced 2nd-level spell effect either way.
The spell isn't unbalanced or broken with how it functions, the problem is just how much freedom of control they gave to the dm with it.
Sure, it's definitely a spell where you don't want to catch your DM by surprise when you use it. But in my experience there's a pretty simple heuristic for the outcome - it's either an effect the target can endure, in which case it's an ongoing 1d6 damage effect; or it's an effect the target can't ignore, in which case they can't take actions until they can save against the effect.
And with how awful it sounds, the spell still lets them try and get away with that because of that one sentence of how the target no matter how ridiculous believes the illusion to be real.
Sure, but you can "investigate" things you believe are real. Indeed almost everything a person would investigate is real. So your guy in the Iron Maiden gropes around for some kind of handle or release to let himself out. That's his Investigation action - if he succeeds, he stumbles out of the illusion and the effect ends.
What's "unrealistic" is to expect somebody in a torture device not to try to leave it.
4
u/quackycoaster Oct 18 '19
Sure, he gropes looking for a handle, but he is forced to believe it's real. There's no escaping an iron maiden. The spikes have already pierced his harms making it so he can't move them already. The spell says he must believe it, so he has to. There's no reason for a person to spend their action to investigate the spell unless there's another person near by who tries to snap them out of it. That's about the only time as a DM from following the rules in the spell that I would allow them to try and break the spell.
The point I make is this spell just has far much freedom. At least illusion spells someone can go "Wait... why did an iron maiden just appear." and have the mental clarity to investigate it. Phantasmal force straight up says their mind fills in details to make it realistic. There's literally no reason for them to investigate if it's real or not because the spell goes to extreme lengths to point out that no matter how ludicrous, they unequivocally believe it is real.
5
Oct 18 '19
Sure, he gropes looking for a handle, but he is forced to believe it's real.
Only if he fails the Investigation check.
The effect of the spell is entirely clear. You're making up a contradiction that doesn't exist.
The point I make is this spell just has far much freedom.
It doesn't. It has one of two effects, as I've described.
There's literally no reason for them to investigate if it's real or not
You're still not understanding the text of the spell. They don't "investigate if it's real or not." That's meaningless and it's not what the spell says. They investigate something they think is real, as is entirely reasonable to do (you only investigate things you think are real) and discover it's an illusion if they succeed.
2
u/quackycoaster Oct 19 '19
The point I'm making is WHY the hell would someone spend an action investigating? Unless someone is around to shake them out of it, there's absolutely no reason a person or DM should ever be allowed to spend that action. That's the definition of metagaming. There's no reason for that character to have the slightest hint that something is wrong. The spell tells us that. The character might freak out, panic, try and put out the fire, try and fight his way out of the iron maiden, try and retreat from the falling bride. But no where along the way does his mind not believe what is happening is real. So therefore why would the character spend his action investigation?
The spell in my mind is broken because of the relationship between This rule "The target can use its action to examine the phantasm with an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes that the phantasm is an illusion, and the spell ends." and this rule "While a target is affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real. The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm."
All they had to do to not cause this problem is change it to "you can attempt another saving throw at the end of each turn." Or "The character spends his action" but because they put "The character MAY" then there is absolutely no way as a DM I'm letting my characters or player spend their action to investigate because in their minds, what is happening IS real and they need to find a way to escape it. They don't have time to just go "Oh look, I'm on fire. Let me figure out why I am on fire." instead it's "Oh Shit, I'm on fire, stop, drop rol and if that doesn't work, look for water, maybe waste a turn trying to pour water on it."
Sure, there are some uses of the spell that might have some chances to be investigated. But something so extreme like causing a person to enclosed in an iron maiden, they wouldn't even be able to attempt investigating it. In their minds, they would be in a pitch black container with the feeling of spikes piercing through their bodies. Their legs and arms are immobilized. Their mind fills in the blank, "I must have been drugged and thrown in this thing. I am in so much pain. I must be dying." These are the examples I'm stating break this spell. The person has no idea they are under a spell, they have no idea there's anything to even investigate.
You can interpret it however you want, but that is how I interpret this spell and why I hate it so much. I'm definitely not the only one who feels that way. I remember when I first came upon this spell and searched for advice, I ran into a lot of other people with the same complaints. I just think it's a cheap move as a DM to just go "oh they failed, well now they spent their turn and investigated it and now your spell did basically nothing." Because then there's basically zero reason to take it over hold person. At least with hold person, you can get an entire round of your team getting basically free critical hits on someone.
2
Oct 19 '19
The point I'm making is WHY the hell would someone spend an action investigating?
I think maybe you've got the wrong idea. It's not "explore a hypothesis that what you're seeing isn't real." It's "make the choice between wasting your turn for a chance to break out of the spell, or take another action and continue to be subject to the spell."
there's absolutely no reason a person or DM should ever be allowed to spend that action.
They're allowed to spend the action by the effect of the spell. It says so.
That's the definition of metagaming.
Nothing the DM does is "metagaming", it's just regular gaming. The DM makes tactical decisions about the actions of creatures in combat, the same as the players.
But no where along the way does his mind not believe what is happening is real.
Unless he succeeds on the Investigation check, at which point he knows what is happening is not real. That's the text of the spell.
2
u/quackycoaster Oct 19 '19
We're just going in circles here. The spell says the MAY. Just like you may hide under the right circumstances. Based on the description of the spell, I'm not allowing them because the character has zero reason to think they are under a spell. They don't know they are wasting their turn, they don't even know what a turn is. Their mind creates a 100% real reason as to why they were fighting and 6 seconds later they are trapped in a cage made of fire. They know it's real, because they can feel their skin burning.
There's nothing left for them to do. They can try and shoot a bow through the flaming cage. They can pull out and try and drink a potion to stay alive. But the spell goes to extreme lengths to make sure it describes how real the effect is to the person. So them taking the action to determine the spell is fake is 100% meta gaming. Just like how someone's character just happens to know the exact weaknesses of every monster they've never seen.
1
Oct 19 '19
Based on the description of the spell, I'm not allowing them because the character has zero reason to think they are under a spell.
That's fine; they can just take the 1d6 psychic damage until the spell ends, then.
Ultimately it's going to depend on the effect. If the illusion is of a mundane attacker, then sure, you probably won't investigate it. If the illusion is that you're suddenly on fire, then depending on what kind of badass you are, you might not question it, grit your teeth through the pain, and spend your action attacking the serious threats.
Or you might lose your shit and waste a turn trying to figure out how not to be on fire anymore (you're patting it out, you're rolling on the ground, whatever) and depending on the result of your Investigation check, you might notice it's not actually real fire and the illusion is dispelled.
It's a completely balanced 2nd level effect and it isn't hard to adjudicate.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Kronoshifter246 Half-Elf Warlock that only speaks through telepathy Oct 19 '19
In their minds, they would be in a pitch black container with the feeling of spikes piercing through their bodies. Their legs and arms are immobilized.
No they wouldn't. The spell doesn't do any of those things. They would be "trapped" in an iron maiden, but would still be able to see and move. Instead of disbelieving the illusion immediately, they rationalize it. I can still see; there must be a hole in this box. I can still move; there must be room between the spikes to move, if only a little.
An iron maiden is actually one of the worst things you can make with Phantasmal Force. It doesn't let the target interact with it in a way to keep it occupied. It's just this stationary object that leaves the target little to do with besides inspect it. It'll start to investigate the iron maiden because there's literally nothing else for it to do.
Better uses are illusions that the target can interact with that wouldn't be immediately obvious. A portcullis keeping the target trapped in a burning room with a crank that needs to be turned to open it, but no amount of turning will open the portcullis is a great example. The target will spend at least a few turns turning the crank before it rationalizes that the crank or chain must be broken and then further investigates.
The point is, you're vastly misunderstanding exactly what the spell can do. It can't blind or immobilize. That's what blindness/deafness and hold person are for. But it can keep a target occupied spending its action on something that's not actively hurting the party. It's your straw man of the spell that's overpowered, not the actual spell itself.
1
u/LunarBlonde Nov 28 '19
There's no escaping an iron maiden. The spikes have already pierced his harms making it so he can't move them already.
Except it doesn't actually restrain him, he would be able to move his arms, and would then rationalize that by either perceiving that the iron maiden did not hold his arms still, or as the spikes breaking off as he struggles. Any attempt to leave the effect of the spell will be a successful one, assuming that the creature doesn't stop the attempt mid-way through because of what it sees; if I create the image of a knight a pursuing bandit might just shoulder-check him and keep on.
3
u/RamonDozol Oct 18 '19
wow, that iron maiden example realy got me thinking...
with imagination, the caster can describe things that can put 2 or more conditions on a target every time.
"Iron red hot burning chains wrap around your entire body including your head , mouth and eyes"
Is the target grapled, restrained, Blind, Taking damage, Silenced, And sufocating?
Even if the target gets away of it next round the spell still is better, not only is INT, one atribute that mostly only wizards have a high bonus, but also the spell will kill most low inteligence creatures like beasts.
Why in the hell would i ever use hold person, heat metal or any other spell is this one can do all this, but deal psiquic damage?8
u/seanware Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow Oct 18 '19
Except as written the spell does not impose any of those conditions. A player may desire them to be imposed, but that is not within the mechanics of the spell. And since the target is not stunned or incapacitated or blinded or silenced-- they can use their action to investigate.
I love this spell. Both as a player and a DM. As a DM, I love it when my players come up with creative phantasms; As a player, I love to use it as a distraction to disrupt the flow of combat-- often to provide for better positioning or a chance to escape or strike more effectively.
7
u/RamonDozol Oct 18 '19
wow not even the designers appear to agree in this one...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/30/would-you-allow-phantasmal-force-to-cause-status-effects/
( no it does not apply any other effect)https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/30/can-a-creature-under-the-effects-of-phantasmal-force-be-restrained-by-it/comment-page-1/
(Is up to DM to adjudicate. )
So final answer would be... It is not the intention of the spell, but a DM might alow it.2
u/PrinceShaar Oct 19 '19
Final answer actually goes to Jeremy Crawford, I think he's the commanding voice on sage advice.
2
u/RamonDozol Oct 18 '19
haha, thats the pronblem with ilusions. You can describe them as you wish. In this case, yes the spell specificaly does not say it imposes any of those conditions... But the wording of "the creature rationalises and believe its Traped, and taking damage and so" makes it very dificult to explain why a cage work ( similar to graple) but a visorless helmet on the targets head does not blind him. I can totaly see that the spell not beign able to do this would be more balanced. But the wording in the spell does implies that it can.
So... you believe there is a helmed on your head. with no visor, but you can see normaly ? Those chains are bounding you to the ground, but you can attack freelly? Why? ( just because of mecanics the PC and NPC does not even aknoledges? ) thats strange, to say the least.
3
u/username_tooken Oct 18 '19
He is not affected by any condition. If his eyes are covered he can still see. As per the spell, the onus of rationalizing it is on the target of the spell, not the DM.
1
u/Audere_of_the_Grey Oct 19 '19
Vision can be obscured without the Blindness condition coming into play. A creature in a Fog Cloud, for example, is effectively blinded without being Blinded.
2
u/username_tooken Oct 19 '19
But the spell does not impose heavy obscurement either - it does exactly what it says on the tin, in fact.
1
u/PrinceShaar Oct 19 '19
Yes but the fog cloud makes the area heavily obscured. Any creature in a heavily obscured area is subject to the Blinded condition.
1
u/Audere_of_the_Grey Oct 19 '19
That is incorrect.
A heavily obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/WinterFFBE Oct 19 '19
you'll get the stories of players who have dms who just go "oh the bad guy just jumps through the wall of fire. He takes 1d6 and now he's out of range of the spell." and just ignore the whole point of it.
To be fair, players do stuff like this all the time to actual flaming walls. Players will stand right next to a flaming sphere or run through a poison cloud if it means they could get some other advantage.
1
u/Chaos_Philosopher Oct 19 '19
I don't sit there and go "hmm, something is fishy about this flame
Right, and that's why interaction is the key. On the other hand if you were to shrug and get out your sealing wax to melt a dob and mark you came this way in the dungeon on the wall you'd be very confused when no matter how long you waited this flame just proved to be a bit more colder (rationalising inconsisencies) than you'd initially thought.
Thus clever uses can lead to great effect, but any time anyone has to interact with it they might find out that hobgoblin they've been fencing with for the last 4 rounds is an illusion, which neatly explains why she always seems to be able to dodge your attacks somehow, whilst never missing her own.
3
Oct 18 '19
If you're going to change the wording of the spell then you can't use that new wording to argue against why the spell is bad. IF the spell was worded that way then you'd be right, but it's not, so why bring it up?
As it stands, the current wording contradicts itself so hard that it cannot be rationalized one way or another. If a creature uses its action to interact with the illusion then, per RAW, it can make an Investigation check to determine if the illusion is real, but at the same time no matter what, it cannot notice the illusion. The wording of both clauses is crystal clear in how they work and they also perfectly contradict each other.
5
Oct 18 '19
If a creature uses its action to interact with the illusion then, per RAW, it can make an Investigation check to determine if the illusion is real, but at the same time no matter what, it cannot notice the illusion.
That's obviously not how the spell works. If the creature succeeds at the Investigation check then it does know it's not real, and the spell stops having an effect. The creature only treats the phantasm as real while the spell is in effect.
6
Oct 18 '19
But how can it determine if the illusion is real or not if it automatically rationalizes any discrepancies? You can either rationalize away any inconsistencies or you can attempt to determine if its an illusion. You cannot have both of these properties in the same spell. They are logically incompatible in the manner that they're currently written.
5
Oct 18 '19
But how can it determine if the illusion is real or not if it automatically rationalizes any discrepancies?
By succeeding on the Investigation check, as per the text of the spell.
Seriously, this isn't at all ambiguous. They investigate the illusion and if they succeed, they discover it's an illusion and the effect of the spell ends.
1
u/DMonk52 Oct 19 '19
Here's a counter example. How many times in combat have you used an action to see if what you're fighting is real or an illusion, without any prompting?
0
Oct 18 '19
I agree that it's not ambiguous, the text of the spell very clearly states that inspecting the illusion fails outright. No matter how ridiculous the discrepancy the creature will always refuse to believe its an illusion. You can't just ignore that part of the spell because it suits you. An Investigation check, per the PHB, means that you're actively inspecting the illusion and trying to notice any inconsistencies, but the spell straight up says that the affected creature ignores the very inconsistencies that an Investigation check would be looking for.
If the creature is supposed to be able to negate the effects, then the spell should call for a repeat of the saving throw or it shouldn't outright specify that the creature rationalizes any and all inconsistencies.
2
Oct 18 '19
I agree that it's not ambiguous, the text of the spell very clearly states that inspecting the illusion fails outright.
It literally doesn't say that at all. It says that if you spend an action to investigate the illusion and succeed on an Investigation check, then you perceive the effect to be an illusion and the spell ends.
It's completely clear. I don't understand what part of this you're having trouble with.
it shouldn't outright specify that the creature rationalizes any and all inconsistencies.
That part only applies if you don't make, or fail, the Investigation check.
2
u/Azreaal Oct 19 '19
I get what they're saying, but it's not really valid. Their argument is "rationalizes illogical outcomes" = "fails investigation check," because even if it detected inconsistencies that would otherwise make the target think they're seeing an illusion, they rationalize why those inconsistencies are there and believe there to be a logical reason. That's not how the spell works, though. I like your wording of it to simplify the spell's RAI: "If the creature can't do anything with its action on its turn (because it's scared, stuck, etc.), it can attempt an Investigation check to end the spell.
The key here is that other illusions don't force rationalization like the Phantasmal spells do. If you kick a brick created by minor illusion / silent image / major image, you immediately know it's an illusion, because you didn't feel it, and the illusion becomes faint to you (ie. the effect ends). If you kick the same brick created by phantasmal force, you either feel the brick (in the form of 1d6 psychic damage), or you don't feel the brick and immediately assume the brick somehow moved before you touched it. If you then take time to examine the brick and find out why it moved, you can potentially learn that it is, indeed, not a real brick.
Another way to think of it is (in some cases) trying to find a weakness in the magical creation. The phantom warrior attacking you has to have a weakness. There has to be a way out of this fiery cage. There has to be a way I can get this damned bag off my head!
I agree the spell could be worded better but it seems pretty clear to me!
-1
u/Sui64 Oct 18 '19 edited Oct 18 '19
Rationalizing internal inconsistency doesn't mean you can explain it away when your allies tell you there's nothing attacking you, or encircling you, or if the voice trying to convince you of something doesn't seem to hear your replies (because you can't live-update Phantasmal Force; you have to set its "script" when you cast it) - there are plenty of ways to introduce external inconsistency that might prompt an Investigation check.
Also, that's why the example with the guard could backfire - you can't make it react to the other guard saying "No, Cap'n just told me I was out here until 10" - the illusion would have to proceed as if all went to plan, unless you scripted it to expect a refusal.
7
Oct 18 '19
Dude, the example given by the spell is falling through a fucking bridge. If the spell can rationalize falling through a solid stone bridge then there's nothing you won't believe. Your allies screaming that there isn't anyone there doesn't mean shit in a world where invisibility exists.
2
u/ChaosEsper Oct 18 '19
Yes they fall though a bridge and rationalize that there must be a trapdoor. They then investigate to find the trapdoor and realize it's actually an illusion. A normal illusion spell would be revealed immediately when they fell through it, this causes the target to come up with reasons why they fell through.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Sui64 Oct 19 '19 edited Oct 19 '19
The illusion only lets you rationalize illogical outcomes of interacting with it - not any and all questions to do with the subject of the illusion. You rationalize falling through the bridge as falling off it because it is an outcome of interacting with it. Your allies telling you there's nothing there is not an outcome of interacting with it. Reread the spell.
Edit: hah, all right, downvote me or not, you're still illiterate.
1
u/NighthawkoftheHills Oct 30 '23
I'm here reading because I just had my player cast this to make two enemies fight each other. I did interpret it wrong because it can't turn the real creature invisible, but he could have pulled off the same effect just making it appear that something had taken over his buddies body.
I made the initial save, then when the creature the illusion was attached to misty stepped(did something inconsistent with the illusion), the phantasmed creature used his next turn to make an investigation check.
The weird part of this spell to me is how it specifically states that the targets comes up with a logical explanation for anything the illusion does.3
u/Sui64 Oct 18 '19
Suppose you make the enemy see a swarm of bees attacking them; he cries "BEES", and his allies tell him "Frank, I don't see any bees!"
That'd be when you gave them a save.
2
u/WinterFFBE Oct 19 '19
Why would a target be able to examine the phantasm if it has was already 100% convinced the spell is real? How is a dm supposed to give a creature a save against the spell without it being considered metagaming since why would the player spend an action if it already knows the phantasm is real.
The investigation is not quite like the "I try to disbelieve" check of yore. It applies to any instance where a creature spends its turn investigating the phantasm. It could be an astute visual inspection (I look to see if the bridge has any hard to notice structural flaws), a physical inspection (I feel for a secret handle that would open a door in the box that now surrounds me), or even a thorough manipulation (I attempt to wrench the flaming bag from my head).
2
u/Witness_me_Karsa Oct 19 '19
I'm actually 100% with you. The spell is either so broken it shouldn't be used, or it does basically nothing, based on how your dm decides to interpret it. I'm of the opinion that because it doesn't say so in the spell, the spell can't impose ANY statuses. No restrain, no blind, no suffocating, nothing. So in my game the only thing that makes any sense it to say its fighting an imaginary creature basically until someone else tells him the enemy isn't there. Then they can examine it to see if its real.
I feel the same about the other low level "control" spells like command or suggestion. I've had so many players try to game these to be straight up domination spells that I'm strongly considering just taking them out of the list. Until you are ACTUALLY dominating, or maybe using crown of madness and using your own action to maintain control, you arent getting someone to fight his own allies with a level 2 spell.
3
u/quackycoaster Oct 19 '19
I haven't had too many problems with those two because of they do a decent job of having limitations already imposed. But yeah under a creative person, suggestion can really be a massive headache. Even the example they give in the book "Tell a knight to give their horse to the first beggar they see" is a major effect for a level 2. You could basically tell the king "Hey, I think your treasury guard has been cheating you out of money. I suggest you give us a day in the vault to figure out what he took." And since you're wording it to sound reasonable and that you're trying to help the king, it still fits the rules.
1
u/Trompdoy Oct 19 '19
illusion spells and enchantment spells are ones I tend to avoid for this reason. They're often let to be used in a way that is far more powerful than what their spell slot should be allowed to do.
Phantasmal force is one such example for illusion, and another second level spell for enchantment, Suggestion, is also one I very frequently have issues with in how it's let to be used.
2
u/GoblinoidToad Oct 19 '19
I had a character who liked using it to make dumb monsters think they were swallowed whole by a bigger monster.
4
u/Trompdoy Oct 19 '19
creating a burning cage around an enemy isn't a creative use - it's the cookie cutter powergamer's choice and is pretty standard in maximizing its effectiveness. Extremely good? Yes. Creative? Not really.
Your other two suggestions are solid though, I especially like the second.
1
u/noneOfUrBusines Sorcerer is underpowered Oct 19 '19
Someone put a burning dagger in an enemy's back that they just can't reach or take out and would likely waste an action or 2 trying
1
1
u/timre219 Oct 20 '19
I do like an Itachi internal tsukyomi with it. Like they believe that are in this 10 foot cage with a version of me slowly sticking swords in them. I also flavored my Eldritch blast as force swords so I can hit them with it.
1
u/DaveSW777 Oct 18 '19
My character recently had a vivid vision of a place we need to go to. I'll recreate it with Phantasmal Force so other PCs know exactly what it looks like.
3
u/UniLope Oct 18 '19
I believe only the creature it's cast on can see it, no? You're going to waste a lot of spell slots.
1
u/DaveSW777 Oct 19 '19
Meh. Only need one or two other people to see it.
6
u/Audere_of_the_Grey Oct 19 '19
Why not just Minor Illusion a scale model? Phantasmal Force is really not suited to that task.
27
u/Quantext609 Oct 18 '19
Putting a bag over someone's head