I would definitely allow an illusion of darkness OR an illusion of Silence.
In either case, there would be:
a) the save for Phantasmal Force, which darkness and silence do not have
b) secondary effects - such as the fact that you can't cast any spells in a silence would NOT apply - you could totally cast a spell while in a Phantasmal Force Silence.
c) Phantasmal force only works on 1 person, while darkness and silence work on all.
d) Anything that defeats Phantasmal Force OR darkness/silence will also defeat the Phantasmal Force Darkness or Silence. For example True Sight will defeat the Phantasmal Force Silence, even though True Sight does not normally defeat Silence.
The spell doesn't say it applies the blinded condition, but there's plenty of room in the description to allow the affected target to be effectively blinded by an appropriate illusion. I don't think it's any more powerful to let Phantasmal Force blind someone than it would be if the caster uses Blindness/Deafness. Both are 2nd level saving throw spells.
Yes, they are at the same level, so they should be equivalent, right? B/D can do one thing: blind OR deafen. By your interpretation, PF could blind AND deafen IN ADDITION to the things it can already explicitly do, including dealing damage, guiding movement, absorbing attacks, etc. It's not PF getting the short shrift here.
Creativity is the most fun and interesting when there are constraints imposed. That's why D&D has rules instead of people just making up how they kill the monsters and get the loot and instantly winning the campaign. PF has massive potential already with just what is explicitly laid out for you - it's already WAY more flexible than B/D. And is allowing blind really encouraging creativity? It's a generic condition that can apply to anything versus the intended usage of PF incorporating the terrain or the situation at hand or what you know about the monster to conjure something tailor-made for that encounter. Each use could and should be different and flavorful. Just using it to put a bucket over every enemy's head is not really using the potential of the spell at all.
That said, B/D is a "cast it and forget it" spell, while PF requires concentration to maintain. It has more potential power, sure, but concentration is a BIG cost, because it means you can't use another concentration spell, and they tend to be the really good ones!
That's a good point. I didn't take concentration into account.
I agree with the concept that illusion spells are problematic in general.
As a DM, I know players are going to try to get as much mileage out of these as they can, and it falls to me to decide where to draw the line and be the bad guy when I have to scale back the effect.
As a player, my DMs tend to be fairly restrictive and I know they won't let me do what I want to with it, even if my goal is just to keep them out of the fight for a turn or two - "Instead of averting its eyes, the monster recklessly charges the basilisk and swings at it, hitting you instead."
I get that keeping things vague allows for creative freedom but I wish they at least had a few examples to give a general idea of intended power level beyond just comparing it to other level 2 spells - because no one is going to do that at the table during a fight.
You can be “effectively” blinded without actually being inflicted with the blinded condition. Creatures peering into Heavily obscured areas are effectively blinded when attempting to perceive that area. This doesn’t necessarily stop a creature from attacking unhindered out of the 10ft cube area though as of the heavy obscurement errata.
the effect that most casters seem to be trying to replicate is opacity related. An in game effects opacity is what gives the ability to to see beyond a space or object that is being peered through. If the phantasm is opaque, the illusion would stop sight beyond the illusion. If the illusion is opaque but doesn’t reasonably cause damage, the damage will not happen.
it may also be important to note that while Phantasmal Force is an illusionary spell, the illusion is only within the targets mind. As such, this particular illusion bypasses truesight’s ability to automatically detect and succeed in illusion saves.
as for the question of if illusions create cover, the majority of the time the answer is no. But visual illusions can usually cause heavy obscurity or break line of sight by being opaque. While this can be used defensively by imposing disadvantage on an attack roll or breaking line of sight required for most spell targeting, this is much different than cover which gives static bonuses to AC and Dexterity saving throws. Also if an attack affects an illusion, the illusion is usually ended since it’s been interacted with.
I would definitely allow an illusion of darkness OR an illusion of Silence.
I am genuinely curious. What kind of illusion would you create that causes the creature to believe it has been silenced?
I agree with your ruling in general. It's a second level spell slot, with concen, affecting only one creature who gets potential multiple saves. Really not OP to have it prevent that creature from using its full set of regular senses.
I would definitely allow an illusion of darkness OR an illusion of Silence.
I am genuinely curious. What kind of illusion would you create that causes the creature to believe it has been silenced?
I agree with your ruling in general. It's a second level spell slot, with concen, affecting only one creature who gets potential multiple saves. Really not OP to have it prevent that creature from using its full set of regular senses.
Deafening silence so loud you can't hear yourself speak? I mean it doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is magic.
Incidentally, what about other conditions? A lot of conditions are changes to the target itself, rather than a creation, but if I have a phantasmal Giant Toad appear and eat the victim, they're going to be blinded, restrained, and taking 1d6 damage ('acid') until the spell ends (I would probably treat attacking a phantasm as equivalent to spending your action making an investigation check, though).
Incidentally, what about other conditions? A lot of conditions are changes to the target itself, rather than a creation, but if I have a phantasmal Giant Toad appear and eat the victim, they're going to be blinded, restrained, and taking 1d6 damage ('acid') until the spell ends (I would probably treat attacking a phantasm as equivalent to spending your action making an investigation check, though).
Keep in mind that the spell states that the target's mind rationalizes any logical inconsistencies. So even if a character is given the illusion of a being swallowed by a giant toad, their minds fill in the blanks as to why they're not restrained or can continue to see. So they might be able to act normally on their turn, their mind filling in that the frog has spit them out, then suddenly swallows them again at the end of their turn.
Incidentally, what about other conditions? A lot of conditions are changes to the target itself, rather than a creation, but if I have a phantasmal Giant Toad appear and eat the victim, they're going to be blinded, restrained, and taking 1d6 damage ('acid') until the spell ends (I would probably treat attacking a phantasm as equivalent to spending your action making an investigation check, though).
Keep in mind that the spell states that the target's mind rationalizes any logical inconsistencies. So even if a character is given the illusion of a being swallowed by a giant toad, their minds fill in the blanks as to why they're not restrained or can continue to see. So they might be able to act normally on their turn, their mind filling in that the frog has spit them out, then suddenly swallows them again at the end of their turn.
I feel like a lot of people seem to be taking the "they rationalize things" in the opposite direction of each other, which is what's causing the big divide. Half the people see it as "well, he actually CAN move/see, so he assumes the frog spit him out or something" and the other half think "since the frog ate him, he pretends that he CAN'T see/move, because he's inside its belly". In this particular case, I would say the more logical/correct option would be that summoning a toad that is trying to eat him whole is as far as the spell goes, it doesn't get to eat him automatically: he'd get some kind of contested save to avoid actually being eaten (maybe treat is as a grapple attack against your spell save DC or something?), and then he can try to escape the grapple, maybe with disadvantage, each turn as he tries to crawl back out/cut a hole in the side, etc. As far as the victim is concerned there's a giant toad trying to eat him, and if it manages to do that he's going to be in it's gut, and thus isn't going to be able to do much of anything except try to get out: can't see anything, can barely move, is melting, the whole deal. He wouldn't just go "oh my god I've been eaten by this monster! Oh, but I can still see and move, so it must have INSTANTLY spit me back up?"
The illusion isn't "trying" to do anything... because it isn't an illusion of a frog trying (and failing) to eat you, it is an illusion of a frog having successfully eaten you. The way I think of the spell is like a DM saying to a particularly gullible and hysterical player...
DM "a giant frog jumps out of a bush, and swallows you whole!"
P: "oh no, what does that mean?"
DM: "Well, you've seen monsters swallow party members before. What do you think that would mean, what usually happens when you get swallowed by monsters?"
P: "Oh no! You mean I'm stuck in its belly and can't get out? And its weird stomach acid is burning me? And its all dark in there and I can't see?! Can I even breathe!?!?!?!"
DM: 'Yup, it's pretty rough in there, all of that stuff is happening, take some damage and roll a Con save to hold your breath. Anyway, you see your friends fighting the-"
P: "Wait, how do I see them, I thought I'm swallowed?"
DM: "Don't worry about it, you just catch a glimpse out of its mouth or something as you struggle, you're still in there. Anyway, you see your friends..."
This came up in yesterday's session and even though I had forgotten about this thread, I'm pleased that I was able to handle it in a way that was consistent with the way I thought it should be handled back on page 1. I would add, though, that "Get this bucket off my head!" might prompt an ally to tell the affected creature there is actually no bucket on his head and expose the illusion, or potentially assist with the investigation check.
Of course, the counterargument would be that there is already a spell to make someone blind and why would someone ever take blindness/deafness instead of phantasmal force when a spell of the same level could do the same thing with an INT save instead of a CON save and also do damage every round?
Of course, the counterargument would be that there is already a spell to make someone blind and why would someone ever take blindness/deafness instead of phantasmal force when a spell of the same level could do the same thing with an INT save instead of a CON save and also do damage every round?
Blindness/Deafness doesn't require concentration and can be upcast to hit multiple targets.
Part of the issue with running illusion spells like this is that there must be a certain suspension of relevant player's real life sense-perspective and active desire to use the imagination. When either the DM or the players willfully refuse to do those things, that's when things get contentious about whether an illusion can blind/deafen someone.
Part of the issue with running illusion spells like this is that there must be a certain suspension of relevant player's real life sense-perspective and active desire to use the imagination. When either the DM or the players willfully refuse to do those things, that's when things get contentious about whether an illusion can blind/deafen someone.
I cannot determine the position you are taking on the question of the thread.
Where people can not consciously see but still respond to visual stimuli such as avoiding walking into obstacles.
As a DM I'd run it like that, the guy with the illusion bucket on their head would instinctivly dodge and strike out accuratly in a fight but not with concious awareness.
As a DM I'd run it like that, the guy with the illusion bucket on their head would instinctivly dodge and strike out accuratly in a fight but not with concious awareness.
So the only real benefit of the spell would be 1d6 damage per round? You sound like my DM.
:) There would be other benefits, their actions would still be limited as the would think they are blind. I wouldn't have them moving around the battlefield tactically or making ranged attacks but no I wouldn't let it be a cheesy 'insta-win button'.
:) There would be other benefits, their actions would still be limited as the would think they are blind. I wouldn't have them moving around the battlefield tactically or making ranged attacks but no I wouldn't let it be a cheesy 'insta-win button'.
It's the same level as Hold Person, which is most certainly an insta-win against targets that can be affected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe the spell was meant to blind, look a the material component required. Can anyone say, pull the wool over your eyes?
I always thought of “pulling the wool over your eyes” as specific to lying to someone rather than literally covering their eyes to blind someone.
I would definitely allow an illusion of darkness OR an illusion of Silence.
In either case, there would be:
a) the save for Phantasmal Force, which darkness and silence do not have
b) secondary effects - such as the fact that you can't cast any spells in a silence would NOT apply - you could totally cast a spell while in a Phantasmal Force Silence.
c) Phantasmal force only works on 1 person, while darkness and silence work on all.
d) Anything that defeats Phantasmal Force OR darkness/silence will also defeat the Phantasmal Force Darkness or Silence. For example True Sight will defeat the Phantasmal Force Silence, even though True Sight does not normally defeat Silence.
I see this as being totally fair and balanced.
That's a good point. I didn't take concentration into account.
I agree with the concept that illusion spells are problematic in general.
As a DM, I know players are going to try to get as much mileage out of these as they can, and it falls to me to decide where to draw the line and be the bad guy when I have to scale back the effect.
As a player, my DMs tend to be fairly restrictive and I know they won't let me do what I want to with it, even if my goal is just to keep them out of the fight for a turn or two - "Instead of averting its eyes, the monster recklessly charges the basilisk and swings at it, hitting you instead."
I get that keeping things vague allows for creative freedom but I wish they at least had a few examples to give a general idea of intended power level beyond just comparing it to other level 2 spells - because no one is going to do that at the table during a fight.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You can be “effectively” blinded without actually being inflicted with the blinded condition. Creatures peering into Heavily obscured areas are effectively blinded when attempting to perceive that area. This doesn’t necessarily stop a creature from attacking unhindered out of the 10ft cube area though as of the heavy obscurement errata.
the effect that most casters seem to be trying to replicate is opacity related. An in game effects opacity is what gives the ability to to see beyond a space or object that is being peered through. If the phantasm is opaque, the illusion would stop sight beyond the illusion. If the illusion is opaque but doesn’t reasonably cause damage, the damage will not happen.
it may also be important to note that while Phantasmal Force is an illusionary spell, the illusion is only within the targets mind. As such, this particular illusion bypasses truesight’s ability to automatically detect and succeed in illusion saves.
as for the question of if illusions create cover, the majority of the time the answer is no. But visual illusions can usually cause heavy obscurity or break line of sight by being opaque. While this can be used defensively by imposing disadvantage on an attack roll or breaking line of sight required for most spell targeting, this is much different than cover which gives static bonuses to AC and Dexterity saving throws. Also if an attack affects an illusion, the illusion is usually ended since it’s been interacted with.
I am genuinely curious. What kind of illusion would you create that causes the creature to believe it has been silenced?
I agree with your ruling in general. It's a second level spell slot, with concen, affecting only one creature who gets potential multiple saves. Really not OP to have it prevent that creature from using its full set of regular senses.
Deafening silence so loud you can't hear yourself speak? I mean it doesn't make a ton of sense, but it is magic.
Incidentally, what about other conditions? A lot of conditions are changes to the target itself, rather than a creation, but if I have a phantasmal Giant Toad appear and eat the victim, they're going to be blinded, restrained, and taking 1d6 damage ('acid') until the spell ends (I would probably treat attacking a phantasm as equivalent to spending your action making an investigation check, though).
Keep in mind that the spell states that the target's mind rationalizes any logical inconsistencies. So even if a character is given the illusion of a being swallowed by a giant toad, their minds fill in the blanks as to why they're not restrained or can continue to see. So they might be able to act normally on their turn, their mind filling in that the frog has spit them out, then suddenly swallows them again at the end of their turn.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I feel like a lot of people seem to be taking the "they rationalize things" in the opposite direction of each other, which is what's causing the big divide. Half the people see it as "well, he actually CAN move/see, so he assumes the frog spit him out or something" and the other half think "since the frog ate him, he pretends that he CAN'T see/move, because he's inside its belly". In this particular case, I would say the more logical/correct option would be that summoning a toad that is trying to eat him whole is as far as the spell goes, it doesn't get to eat him automatically: he'd get some kind of contested save to avoid actually being eaten (maybe treat is as a grapple attack against your spell save DC or something?), and then he can try to escape the grapple, maybe with disadvantage, each turn as he tries to crawl back out/cut a hole in the side, etc. As far as the victim is concerned there's a giant toad trying to eat him, and if it manages to do that he's going to be in it's gut, and thus isn't going to be able to do much of anything except try to get out: can't see anything, can barely move, is melting, the whole deal. He wouldn't just go "oh my god I've been eaten by this monster! Oh, but I can still see and move, so it must have INSTANTLY spit me back up?"
The illusion isn't "trying" to do anything... because it isn't an illusion of a frog trying (and failing) to eat you, it is an illusion of a frog having successfully eaten you. The way I think of the spell is like a DM saying to a particularly gullible and hysterical player...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This came up in yesterday's session and even though I had forgotten about this thread, I'm pleased that I was able to handle it in a way that was consistent with the way I thought it should be handled back on page 1. I would add, though, that "Get this bucket off my head!" might prompt an ally to tell the affected creature there is actually no bucket on his head and expose the illusion, or potentially assist with the investigation check.
Of course, the counterargument would be that there is already a spell to make someone blind and why would someone ever take blindness/deafness instead of phantasmal force when a spell of the same level could do the same thing with an INT save instead of a CON save and also do damage every round?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Blindness/Deafness doesn't require concentration and can be upcast to hit multiple targets.
Part of the issue with running illusion spells like this is that there must be a certain suspension of relevant player's real life sense-perspective and active desire to use the imagination. When either the DM or the players willfully refuse to do those things, that's when things get contentious about whether an illusion can blind/deafen someone.
I cannot determine the position you are taking on the question of the thread.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If it is not already clear, my position is YES, it should. See Post #26 above.
There is a real life phenomenom called blindsight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
Where people can not consciously see but still respond to visual stimuli such as avoiding walking into obstacles.
As a DM I'd run it like that, the guy with the illusion bucket on their head would instinctivly dodge and strike out accuratly in a fight but not with concious awareness.
So the only real benefit of the spell would be 1d6 damage per round? You sound like my DM.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
:) There would be other benefits, their actions would still be limited as the would think they are blind. I wouldn't have them moving around the battlefield tactically or making ranged attacks but no I wouldn't let it be a cheesy 'insta-win button'.
It's the same level as Hold Person, which is most certainly an insta-win against targets that can be affected.