Illusory Creature only deals damage when it hits with a Strike specifically.
Having it cast spells or use any other non-Strike to deal damage is out of the question.
Illusory Creature only deals damage when it hits with a Strike specifically.
Having it cast spells or use any other non-Strike to deal damage is out of the question.
I agree that the spell description only provides a mechanism for strikes to do damage.
From what I can see there is nothing discussed in the spell about an illusionary arrow staying in the chest. But you can have arrows and sling stones glance off and do damage. (Falling to the ground never to be found again). Perhaps have the ammo shatter on impact, or bury itself in the wound, or pass straight through. If your GM is harsh and insists that this is enough to allow for an automatic save then you will have to get more creative.
Someone doing a treat wounds is definitely going to get a saving throw.
The "dragon" can breath fire and get only one target in its area of effect - which can easily be resolved as a strike not a saving throw.
Interestingly there is no multiple attack penalty for an illusionary creature.
Talk to your GM and see how accommodating he is. He might allow a save instead. For balance reasons though I doubt any GM will allow an area of effect for more than one target.
Illusions have always been interpretation heavy and rely on the GM being reasonable. Thats a negotiation you are going to have to have.
On re-reading the spell, I'm strongly inclined to limits its attacks to melee strikes. Giving it ranged strikes would make the spell objectively more powerful, and nothing in the spell description suggests an illusory creature can attack anything beyond its reach.
IMO, this is an overly inflexible position to take. If the illusion does a set amount of damage on a successful attack roll, what difference does it make what the attack appears to be? It's an illusion.Illusory Creature only deals damage when it hits with a Strike specifically.
Having it cast spells or use any other non-Strike to deal damage is out of the question.
I mean if you don't understand how allowing it to do AOE damage would make it substantially more powerful, I'm not really sure how to explain it to you.
On re-reading the spell, I'm strongly inclined to limits its attacks to melee strikes. Giving it ranged strikes would make the spell objectively more powerful, and nothing in the spell description suggests an illusory creature can attack anything beyond its reach.
I don't think you can reasonably say that illusionary creature is overpowered in regards to damage. 1d4+stat, +1d4 per heightened level after 2!? Even at two attacks per round with no MAP.
They recover half when they disbelieve the illusion - though its not clear if that happens when the spell ends without being disbelieved.
The rule definitely allows for strikes and that includes ranged strikes. If you don't like faking an area of effect as a strike then OK thats a fair reading of the rule.
If you are just using it for damage then I think you are underusing it.
I would accept that you could argue it is over powered in terms of its use for a distraction or in avoiding an encounter. That is where it runs into its real problem. The GM prepares an encounter, but the player comes up with a clever illusion that avoids the encounter. Thats why GMs struggle with the spell and often nerf it. It is harder for them to handle. GMs have to be two steps ahead and have options planed out. But I think it is really important to allow for and reward creative play. Experienced groups should be able to handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a thread generally covering this a while back.
Generally, I don't see a reason why you couldn't allow an illusory creature to use any ability to deal damage, as long as it doesn't mechanically change the damage done by the illusory creature.
An illusory mage could use a "cantrip" for instance, though that cantrip wouldn't actually be a casting of that cantrip, it would just be the manifestation chosen for the damage done by the illusory creature at that time. Or even a Force Bolt, which would be even more believable.
I mean, we are fine with flying illusory creatures right? Like the example of a Dragon they use in the spell? So why not ranged or even faux magical options?
Ok rules questions on illusionary creature:
Does an illusionary creature have a multiple attack penalty, because it is just a creature like any other minion?
Or does it not because the spell description tells you to use your spell attack roll instead, and this is just a spell with no attack trait?
The spell ends when it is not sustained, when it is hit by an attack or fails a save. For the purposes of the victims recovering half the mental damage they have sustained - is this the same as if the spell was successfully disbelieved by them?
The illusion is not a minion, despite similar mechanics. So don't apply minion rules to it.
It does have MAP because nothing says it avoids MAP, and it is the one taking the actions to Strike. It just gets the benefit of using your Spell Attack bonus for its attacks, but they are still its attacks.
Thankfully, its MAP does not effect you unlike Spiritual Weapon (et al).
The spell lacks the Attack trait because you aren't making an attack by casting it, so casting it also does not affect your MAP. Summoning a creature also does not have the Attack trait for comparison.
Many monsters in the Bestiary have ranged Strikes or energy Strikes, so it's not outlandish to give the illusory creature some, though that might make more intelligent enemies alert to shenanigans. One counter-argument would be that the ranged weapon/energy bolt wouldn't be able to leave the main illusion's "substance" and be a separate illusion. You are making one illusion, not one capable of splitting (which may lead to shenanigans). I don't think it's imbalancing to allow ranged Strikes, yet I've just now tilted myself toward not allowing them.
Whether mimicking a spell works might also depend on the special effects one associates with casting, as the illusion wouldn't include those. I suppose some more outlandish creatures may not seem to need components (like an Efreeti using fire).
I also think its strongest uses are to bluff, scare, flank, or waste a BBEG's attack, not to actually Strike (especially with the potential healing) though I do think it'd be funny to use against creatures with a severe Weakness.
Illusory Creature doesn't have the attack trait though.
However, I would still have it take the MAP because the Strike it is using does have that trait.
If the illusory creature is allowed to make ranged attacks, then it is less vulnerable to being disbelieved. And how do you calculate its range, or the penalty from exceeding its range increment?
And although the spell description never restricts its attacks to melee strikes, thus theoretically allowing ranged strikes, it seems as if a spell attack would be disallowed, since it is not a Strike. A permissive DM could allow the illusory creature to be equipped with a bow, or thrown weapons like hand axes or javelins.
But, again, if the DM does allow ranged strikes, it makes the illusory creature less vulnerable to return attacks that potentially end the spell. On balance, I'm tempted to limit its attacks to its reach, regardless of what illusory weapons it may be equipped with.
If the illusory creature is allowed to make ranged attacks, then it is less vulnerable to being disbelieved. And how do you calculate its range, or the penalty from exceeding its range increment?
And although the spell description never restricts its attacks to melee strikes, thus theoretically allowing ranged strikes, it seems as if a spell attack would be disallowed, since it is not a Strike. A permissive DM could allow the illusory creature to be equipped with a bow, or thrown weapons like hand axes or javelins.
But, again, if the DM does allow ranged strikes, it makes the illusory creature less vulnerable to return attacks that potentially end the spell. On balance, I'm tempted to limit its attacks to its reach, regardless of what illusory weapons it may be equipped with.
I originally had this same stance, but putting the illusion at range also means you aren't using it for flanking or to absorb attacks, so I think it's fine. If your goal is damage output, Flaming Sphere is the way to go anyway. Yes, Fire is more likely to be resisted than Mental, but it's still a much better damage spell.
Illusory Creature does less damage than Cantrips.
I would use the range of the weapon you choose to give it. Throwing hyper accurate knives from 200 feet away would be too incongruous.
The illusion is not a minion, despite similar mechanics. So don't apply minion rules to it.
It does have MAP because nothing says it avoids MAP, and it is the one taking the actions to Strike. It just gets the benefit of using your Spell Attack bonus for its attacks, but they are still its attacks.
Thankfully, its MAP does not effect you unlike Spiritual Weapon (et al).
The spell lacks the Attack trait because you aren't making an attack by casting it, so casting it also does not affect your MAP. Summoning a creature also does not have the Attack trait for comparison.Many monsters in the Bestiary have ranged Strikes or energy Strikes, so it's not outlandish to give the illusory creature some, though that might make more intelligent enemies alert to shenanigans. One counter-argument would be that the ranged weapon/energy bolt wouldn't be able to leave the main illusion's "substance" and be a separate illusion...
The general rules on illusions are light.
Ok I'm going to have a go at answering my own questions. Its seems clear from the answers so far that much of this is more a judgement call rather than a strict rules reading.
1) The Illusion is either a creature or its only a spell. Its clear from reading the spell that it is something called "the illusion" and its gets actions. From this I infer its a creature even if only for a short time.
2) Because it is a creature that can attack its should have a multiple attack penalty. This multiple attack penalty should be separate from the casters multiple attack penalty, because its a creature taking actions not the caster through a spell. The rules for making an attack have the wonderful pronoun "you" so we can't really limit or say anything about the illusions nature because of this.
3) It seems to have characteristics similar to a summoned creature and also to a minion, but its is not explicilty either of those. So while that might guide our thinking it is not authorative.
4) The illusion is allowed to make strikes which includes ranged strikes.
5) The illusion has no specific movement rate or limit on its abilities other than size large (at base level) and range 500ft from the caster. It can do or be whatever it's caster wants. There are no limits.
6) If it speaks there is a Deception roll from the caster to check to see if the illusion does that convincingly.
7) Anyone who does a seek action or touches the illusion, is allowed to disbelieve it. This is a perception check versus caster DC. Otherwise it defaults to being believed. That is, normally you have to take an action to check it or you believe it.
8) There don't seem to be any rules about multiple disbelieve attempts if you want to keep taking seek actions. My objection to this is that, unless the illusion is being exceptionally wierd, it is poor roleplaying and metagaming. A GM should probably remind a player of this.
9) If the illusion does damage unreasonably in the opinion of the GM, then you can get a free action disbelieve attempt.
10) Almost universally GMs will expand on this explicit discretion, to include if the illusions does something significantly wrong or internally inconsistent. For example if you have summoned an illusionary shark into a Tibetan monastry, or if your illusionary guardsman suddenly runs 300 ft in one round in plain sight of everyone. Then the GM is very likely to give out free action disbelieve attempts.
11) Some GMs will hold tightly to the concept that the illusion has a size, and look harshly on (in increasing order of objection) to some of: strikes with reach, ranged strikes, wierd effects masquerading as strikes, spells as strikes, or even area of effect breath weapons as strikes.
Honestly I would allow pretty much any special effect as long as it only causes one strike roll. The illusion is doing less damage than a cantrip, and even something as simple as a sword strike has problems because
a) the wound doesn't actually bleed, the damage is purely mental
b) the armour is not damaged or scratched
c) the illusion reaches out of its square into its target square to inflict the damage
I assume there is enough in the power of the spell to hide this initially from the victim. Or else the spell would just not work at all. Perhaps some impact feeling and definitely pain, but also an image of the sword hitting and penetrating.
12) Treating the wounds of someone who has taken illusionary i.e. mental damage, should almost always allow a disbelieve attempt.
13) Half the damage is recovered when the spell is disbelieved by the victim. If the spell ends because is was hit or not sustained, I see two options here that I can't choose between:
a) the illusion is gone so you can't disbelieve at at this point, you fell for it so the damage stands.
b) this is internally inconsistent and choose to give anyone, who had not already failed a disbelieve, a final free action perception check to disbelieve, and recover half their mental damage.
14) There are no balance issues even with the most favourable interpretation of this spell.