For example, the spellcaster makes it looks like razorsharp chains cover the target's face tearing open their flesh. Or a sheet of iron covers their head "Choking" them. Or a colum of black ink filled with quippers start attacking the target.
These are just some effects that could be created with phantasmal force with which a creature would technically not be able to see anything.
Would this be able to block a spellcaster from seeing someone to cast spells on them?
Illusion spells are always a little up to the DM. I would personally say that it technically doesn't cause the blinded condition, but that it forces the target to voluntarily avert their gaze from everything as if everything was a basilisk, effectively accomplishing the same thing. Other DM's may rule differently, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Blinding the creature is not one of the effects of the spell, so that would probably be one of the things that the target rationalises. "My head is wrapped in chains (etc) but I can still perceive my surroundings. There must be small gaps I can see through or I must have a 6th sense." Something like that, maybe.
Still being able to see through the chains would make sense but what about something that completely blocks view? like my other two examples.
Well, then the creature would still rationalize it, according to the text in the spell. The spell says exactly what it does and doesn't do. Maybe they think that they've developed some other sense to the level that they no longer need to rely on sight. Either way, I could see the real value not in "blinding" the creature for a few rounds, but in tricking them to believe that even when blinded they can still perceive their surroundings.
I absolutely wouldn't allow it to cause blindness. There are other spells for that. I agree with the others that the target would rationalise it somehow that they can still sense their surroundings.
I absolutely would allow it. A "visual phenomenon" could include pitch black darkness, opaque fog, the inside of a blindfold or metal mask with no eye slots, etc etc. It doesn't matter that the creatures eyes are not actually Blinded, the creature will behave as though the visual phenomenon of "you're blindfolded and can't see anything" is true. Hysterical blindness, where a person's eyes work but their brain refuses to process the impression, is even a real world phenomenon, recreating that with a magical spell shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
I absolutely would allow it. A "visual phenomenon" could include pitch black darkness, opaque fog, the inside of a blindfold or metal mask with no eye slots, etc etc. It doesn't matter that the creatures eyes are not actually Blinded, the creature will behave as though the visual phenomenon of "you're blindfolded and can't see anything" is true. Hysterical blindness, where a person's eyes work but their brain refuses to process the impression, is even a real world phenomenon, recreating that with a magical spell shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
Wow. This is the opposite of hysterical blindness. It is your brain telling you that you are blind but you still know exactly where everything in your surroundings is located. It isn't your brain refusing the information, it is your brain refusing to understand where it got the information.
I absolutely would allow it. A "visual phenomenon" could include pitch black darkness, opaque fog, the inside of a blindfold or metal mask with no eye slots, etc etc. It doesn't matter that the creatures eyes are not actually Blinded, the creature will behave as though the visual phenomenon of "you're blindfolded and can't see anything" is true. Hysterical blindness, where a person's eyes work but their brain refuses to process the impression, is even a real world phenomenon, recreating that with a magical spell shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
Wow. This is the opposite of hysterical blindness. It is your brain telling you that you are blind but you still know exactly where everything in your surroundings is located.
Yeah. If anything, creating an illusion of an object that should normally hinder a creature's senses--but doesn't--ought to actually make it easier for the creature to realize it's an illusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think the idea that the target's mind rationalizes illogical fallacies would prevent them from just being outright blinded. However, I also agree that clever use of the spell could still give players advantage in a way that isn't overtly spelled out in the spell description. I like the example of making them think that there's a basilisk nearby, so they avert their eyes to avoid looking at it, giving them disadvantage if, say... the "basilisk" is occupying the same space as one of the player characters.
I think the idea that the target's mind rationalizes illogical fallacies would prevent them from just being outright blinded. However, I also agree that clever use of the spell could still give players advantage in a way that isn't overtly spelled out in the spell description. I like the example of making them think that there's a basilisk nearby, so they avert their eyes to avoid looking at it, giving them disadvantage if, say... the "basilisk" is occupying the same space as one of the player characters.
I think that's a great description. This spell isn't about what effect you can make with the illusion, but rather what you can convince the creature of with that effect.
If you try to make the target think it is blind, but it can still hit you without disadvantage, have you gained anything? Maybe it knows it can hit you just as easily "in world" or maybe it doesn't, but that really isn't the point because it can hit you just as easily either way. There is no mechanical change provided by placing an illusion that "in theory blinds" a creature, meaning it is not "effectively blinded." You only gain an advantage if your illusion prevents a creature from even attempting attacking because it thinks it is blinded.
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. I'm not saying they are the same thing, but if someone at my table wanted to make the target believe they were in a cloud of fog, then the target would be effectively blinded just like they would be in a normal cloud of fog, even though it does not apply the blinded condition. And when the person stumbled around in the fog, trying to figure out what was going on, then that would count as their investigation check for me.
I feel like illusion spells can sometimes get short shrift from DMs so I like to look for a reason to say yes to someone's creativity. I also feel like phantasmal force gives a lot of leeway in the spell's description to allow the DM to find a way to make a thing happen within the rules framework.
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. I'm not saying they are the same thing, but if someone at my table wanted to make the target believe they were in a cloud of fog, then the target would be effectively blinded just like they would be in a normal cloud of fog, even though it does not apply the blinded condition. And when the person stumbled around in the fog, trying to figure out what was going on, then that would count as their investigation check for me.
I feel like illusion spells can sometimes get short shrift from DMs so I like to look for a reason to say yes to someone's creativity. I also feel like phantasmal force gives a lot of leeway in the spell's description to allow the DM to find a way to make a thing happen within the rules framework.
But I would only still allow the mechanical effects that it provides. When the creature attacks from within that fog cloud, they would do so not at disadvantage. The question is whether the creature knows it isn't having any more trouble hitting its foes, and if the creature does know it can still target its foes effectively, how it rationalizes that fact.
Edit: maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I think you are right about the part where illusion sometimes gets the short shrift, and maybe it would be worthwhile to just allow some stuff that isn't quite in line with the mechanics. For example, can I give myself cover with a minor illusion? I guess if I can, then I should be able to do other creative things with illusion.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's easy for a DM to say, "It doesn't do that" with basically any low-level illusion spell. If we don't buy into the process, then there isn't much point in having them at all.
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.
I like the guys at Nerdarchy, and their conclusion is the one that I slowly came to as well. Illusion magic only serves to function when there is at least some buy-in. If an illusion doesn't get you anything then why have the spells?
I like their example of guards chasing a group with the group hiding around a corner and putting up an illusory wall. Even if the guards know the streets and know there isn't a wall there, shouldn't it at least give them pause? They probably also know that there are magics that can put a wall up in an instant, so a new wall shouldn't immediately make them think "this is fake, I'm ignoring it" like the DM knows to be true.
On that note, I would think it might be fun to interchange illusory walls and real wall of stone walls back and forth. Let the guards figure out that the first wall was an illusion, but then make the second wall real and let them barrel into it full tilt. Or just tell the DM "a wall appears" and make his monsters/him figure out if it is real the way a PC might have to interact with something the DM places in the world.
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!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dear smarter people than me,
Could the spell Phantasmal Force cause the "Blinded" effect?
For example, the spellcaster makes it looks like razorsharp chains cover the target's face tearing open their flesh.
Or a sheet of iron covers their head "Choking" them.
Or a colum of black ink filled with quippers start attacking the target.
These are just some effects that could be created with phantasmal force with which a creature would technically not be able to see anything.
Would this be able to block a spellcaster from seeing someone to cast spells on them?
thank you!
Illusion spells are always a little up to the DM. I would personally say that it technically doesn't cause the blinded condition, but that it forces the target to voluntarily avert their gaze from everything as if everything was a basilisk, effectively accomplishing the same thing. Other DM's may rule differently, though.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
RAW, no, it can cause damage, but not apply conditions.
Blinding the creature is not one of the effects of the spell, so that would probably be one of the things that the target rationalises. "My head is wrapped in chains (etc) but I can still perceive my surroundings. There must be small gaps I can see through or I must have a 6th sense." Something like that, maybe.
Still being able to see through the chains would make sense but what about something that completely blocks view? like my other two examples.
Well, then the creature would still rationalize it, according to the text in the spell. The spell says exactly what it does and doesn't do. Maybe they think that they've developed some other sense to the level that they no longer need to rely on sight. Either way, I could see the real value not in "blinding" the creature for a few rounds, but in tricking them to believe that even when blinded they can still perceive their surroundings.
I absolutely wouldn't allow it to cause blindness. There are other spells for that. I agree with the others that the target would rationalise it somehow that they can still sense their surroundings.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I absolutely would allow it. A "visual phenomenon" could include pitch black darkness, opaque fog, the inside of a blindfold or metal mask with no eye slots, etc etc. It doesn't matter that the creatures eyes are not actually Blinded, the creature will behave as though the visual phenomenon of "you're blindfolded and can't see anything" is true. Hysterical blindness, where a person's eyes work but their brain refuses to process the impression, is even a real world phenomenon, recreating that with a magical spell shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
Phantasmal Force does more than inflict Blinded, not less.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wow. This is the opposite of hysterical blindness. It is your brain telling you that you are blind but you still know exactly where everything in your surroundings is located. It isn't your brain refusing the information, it is your brain refusing to understand where it got the information.
Phantasmal Force is not Blindness/deafness, it does not do what that spell does and more because cannot do more than it says it does.
Yeah. If anything, creating an illusion of an object that should normally hinder a creature's senses--but doesn't--ought to actually make it easier for the creature to realize it's an illusion.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think the idea that the target's mind rationalizes illogical fallacies would prevent them from just being outright blinded. However, I also agree that clever use of the spell could still give players advantage in a way that isn't overtly spelled out in the spell description. I like the example of making them think that there's a basilisk nearby, so they avert their eyes to avoid looking at it, giving them disadvantage if, say... the "basilisk" is occupying the same space as one of the player characters.
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 think that's a great description. This spell isn't about what effect you can make with the illusion, but rather what you can convince the creature of with that effect.
If you try to make the target think it is blind, but it can still hit you without disadvantage, have you gained anything? Maybe it knows it can hit you just as easily "in world" or maybe it doesn't, but that really isn't the point because it can hit you just as easily either way. There is no mechanical change provided by placing an illusion that "in theory blinds" a creature, meaning it is not "effectively blinded." You only gain an advantage if your illusion prevents a creature from even attempting attacking because it thinks it is blinded.
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. I'm not saying they are the same thing, but if someone at my table wanted to make the target believe they were in a cloud of fog, then the target would be effectively blinded just like they would be in a normal cloud of fog, even though it does not apply the blinded condition. And when the person stumbled around in the fog, trying to figure out what was going on, then that would count as their investigation check for me.
I feel like illusion spells can sometimes get short shrift from DMs so I like to look for a reason to say yes to someone's creativity. I also feel like phantasmal force gives a lot of leeway in the spell's description to allow the DM to find a way to make a thing happen within the rules framework.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But I would only still allow the mechanical effects that it provides. When the creature attacks from within that fog cloud, they would do so not at disadvantage. The question is whether the creature knows it isn't having any more trouble hitting its foes, and if the creature does know it can still target its foes effectively, how it rationalizes that fact.
Edit: maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I think you are right about the part where illusion sometimes gets the short shrift, and maybe it would be worthwhile to just allow some stuff that isn't quite in line with the mechanics. For example, can I give myself cover with a minor illusion? I guess if I can, then I should be able to do other creative things with illusion.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's easy for a DM to say, "It doesn't do that" with basically any low-level illusion spell. If we don't buy into the process, then there isn't much point in having them at all.
Relevant:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If the target voluntarily closes their eyes, that's not the the spell causing blindness, right?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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.
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
What you got out of my post was something very different than what I put into it. But thanks for your kind words all the same.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I like the guys at Nerdarchy, and their conclusion is the one that I slowly came to as well. Illusion magic only serves to function when there is at least some buy-in. If an illusion doesn't get you anything then why have the spells?
I like their example of guards chasing a group with the group hiding around a corner and putting up an illusory wall. Even if the guards know the streets and know there isn't a wall there, shouldn't it at least give them pause? They probably also know that there are magics that can put a wall up in an instant, so a new wall shouldn't immediately make them think "this is fake, I'm ignoring it" like the DM knows to be true.
On that note, I would think it might be fun to interchange illusory walls and real wall of stone walls back and forth. Let the guards figure out that the first wall was an illusion, but then make the second wall real and let them barrel into it full tilt. Or just tell the DM "a wall appears" and make his monsters/him figure out if it is real the way a PC might have to interact with something the DM places in the world.
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!