I for one didn't get that impression from their posts.
One or two strikes against infinite creatures is not the same claim as infinite strikes against any number of creatures.
|
Infinite strikes is pretty much going to outright break the illusion. It has to be somewhat believable or it is just not a credible illusion.
That doesn’t help you once you’re already down from infinite damage.
It is not as much damage as you desire. It is 1d4+stat which is just pitiful on the scale of damage. That requires a spell attack roll to work. Further is only half real and some comes back when you eventually make your save.
If. If you eventually make the save. Which you can’t if the “monster” is defeated and the spell ends.
Its not unbalanced. Its never going to do a lot of damage. Its firmly in cantrip range.
That’s true as written. You were saying it can make as many attacks as you want. Little times a lot equals multiple a lots.
It's also not an infinite number of Strikes. At best, it would be limited by the number of targets within range.
Hitting the same target multiple times is something it can do as written. That’s something anybody can do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how I read it:
1) The Spell stipulates that it will always use Spell Attack rolls and Spell Attack Rolls have their Range Defined by the Spell you're using, in this case, 500 ft.
2) The Spell talks about the creature using a "Weapon" and offers no ability for the use of Unarmed Attacks which the example Lighting Bolt would qualify as since it's natural to the creature and isn't a manufactured item in any sense at all.
3) Because it's a Spell Attack that YOU, the caster makes, it uses your MAP as any other spell would. Like other aspects of the Strike you're making (It's a Spell Attack Roll to Strike explicitly) it cannot benefit from Agile, Finesse, Deadly, Propulsive, while also not having any Range Increment at all since Spell Attacks don't HAVE Range increments per point #1 and...
4) If you create a creature with a Ranged Weapon with a shorter Range Increment like a Crossbow for example, and you use it to attack a creature that is WELL beyond the first or maybe Second Range increment that is really pushing the boundaries of being believable and should probably offer an automatic check to Disbelieve.
-So, Lighting Bolt is off the table, as is pretty much any attack that doesn't originate from a "Weapon" as defined by, well, the Weapon Rules. Of course, you could summon your lighting cloud and give it a Sling with which it attacks but since that's not something said cloud could actually do that would result in a check to Disbelieve.
Thanks for your input, Themetricsystem. Some of those seem unnecessarily harsh to me.
1) I believe that the spell's range (500 feet) is the range in which the the illusion can appear in, move about in, and interact with other creatures in. For example, if an illusory crossbowman tried to shoot a bolt 600 feet outside the edge of the spell range, the bolt would vanish mid-flight.
2) I believe an illusion can use whatever weapons or natural attacks is made available to it. It would be resonable for a GM to limit what forms these take (no 1,000-foot-long spears being wielded by medium soldiers for example).
3) I do NOT believe that the caster must contend with the MAP. The spell does not have the attack trait. The illusion on the other hand, may well have to contend with it (as though it were a separate creature from the caster).
4) I believe that if it is within the maximum range (6 increments) of the weapon, then a GM granting an automatic check to disbelieve would be out of bounds. I think it would be totally appropriate for a GM to rule that the spell attack roll takes the range penalties as appropriate for the apparent weapon being used by the illusion.
If a GM allowed unusual attacks at all (such as area-of-effects and the like), I think they would be well within their rights to enforce the spell attack roll and have it only damage a single creature.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that any of this is how it actually works, just that I think that these would be fair GM rulings in the absence of clearer information.
Casting the spell isn't an attack, so it can't have the attack trait.
But using the illusory creature to make an attack would still alter MAP because that optional action (a Strike) would have the attack trait.
Casting the spell isn't an attack, so it can't have the attack trait.
But using the illusory creature to make an attack would still alter MAP because that optional action (a Strike) would have the attack trait.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think it's a strong point if you're arguing that the illusion's attacks (that is, you're spell attack) gets penalized, but not your own attacks.
You and your bear companion don't share MAP. Why would you share it with an illusion?
I suppose I can see the argument that the caster is the source of the attack, but I will point out that Illusory creature is a minion in all but name. It has 2 actions that it uses when you sustain the spell, exactly like a summoned minion for example.
And imo, it's not exactly like Illusory creature is a Powerhouse of damage potential. So I don't see a need for MAP to balance it out.
Really the spell should have been a "Summon" that allowed you to summon a specific "Illusory Creature" as a minion. A sort of "summon anything" with all the limitations that come from being an illusion.
Maybe create an illusory creature bestiary entry, and lump in the ins and outs of how that creature works in that entry, rather than try to write a 3 paragraph spell that covers all of the possible uses of the spell.
But we have what we have, and what we have doesn't mention MAP at all, but does stipulate that the illusory creature gets 2 actions that it uses when you sustain. Imo, if something is spending actions on attacks, that something get's the MAP.
Why would it need any feats? Its not even real.
Because that's kind of the underlying principle of the game. You have default options and then Feats and other character options that alter how those mechanics work.
The Illusory Creature says it can Strike. So... you follow the rules for Strike. It lacks any abilities that modify how Strikes work... so you just have it Strike normally.
Because the illusion doesn't actually exist and it isn't the source of the Strike, your Character, the PC is the source of the Strike.
Disagree completely. The spell is pretty clear that you give the illusion two actions when you sustain it and then it makes the strikes. The fact that it's not real doesn't actually matter. It's still unequivocally taking the actions itself, because that's what the spell says it's doing.
This spell is pretty incomplete and busted. Do the two attacks suffer MAP? Do they have a range limitation, beyond GM fiat giving disbelief checks? What's the movement speed of the illusion, can it just teleport around?
I would agree it is incomplete.
There could be clear rules saying an illusion can only do simple strikes, but instead it says attacks. As we know that attacks are simply not defined in a locked down way in the game.
Or it could say it can only do attacks that can be easily resolved as simple strikes,
It doesn't mention MAP or weapon attacks. It seems really odd to put limits on what an illusionary figure can be.
It does say that if the illusion does anything too strange the illusion can be disbelieved even as a free action. From which point it does no damage to that target.
The problem being if the illusion does something that causes effectively infinite damage, like a small dragon coming down and breathing 50 times on all targets, or a orc with a pike sweeping all targets many times, all in the one round.
Some see this as a problem and revert to the early rules position limiting things to simple attacks to be safe and defined.
If I were GMing I'd simply laugh and hand out 50 free action disbelieve checks before resolving the attacks - guess what - no one takes any damage.
Choose how you want to play. I don't see my position as unbalanced or unsupported by the rules.
It doesn't mention MAP
It doesn't need to. MAP is just a feature of making Attacks in pathfinder.
You and your bear companion don't share MAP. Why would you share it with an illusion?Using that same logic, the illusion taking its two actions would leave you with two less actions. It just doesn't follow.
Because the illusion doesn't actually exist and it isn't the source of the Strike, your Character, the PC is the source of the Strike.
It doesn't mention MAPIt doesn't need to. MAP is just a feature of making Attacks in pathfinder.
MAP is just a feature of the Attack trait in Pathfinder. It's possible to make attacks without MAP, just not Attacks, if you catch my meaning. ;)
I disagree. Attack is a specific term within PF2. If you're not attacking, you're not attacking.
In any case, it doesn't actually matter because illusory creature specifically references the Strike action, which has the attack trait.