Can illusions be used to provide a flanking bonus?

[Gnome]

If you allowed an illusion to CAUSE flanking, you could hardly argue against a PC who said "I think the visible orc on one side of me is an illusion, and I'll ignore it, disallowing his rogue-friend on the other side of me with a higher initiative to sneak attack."

Well there are also no rules for disbelieving things that are real, so one may TRY to ignore one opponent in this manner, but it won't work: you still reflexively react to both opponents.

 

[the Jester]

I believe the spell for this is called phantasmal assailant and is in Complete Divine.

Could be wrong.

 

[sullivan]

I'm going to link to the thread I hijacked (sorry ) that I imagine lead to this thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=123140

In there around post 15 or so mike mentions a Rules of the Game quote that says that unseen/undetected attackers CANNOT form part of a flank. Of course this is quasi offical, but it does flow from that that the defenders state of mind is a key component to the flank. So affecting the mind through illusion may create it.

To put the theory another way, the illusion DOES threaten, albeit it an illusionary threat. Being able to do damage is not a condition of threatening. An illusion can attack, it is just that physical damage just doesn't occur if it hits. You believe the illusion and the threat is real in your mind, so you are actually threatened.

As for RAW, as with many aspects of illusions, it is a sadly gray area so it does allow for a good deal of wiggle room.

 

[Poltergeist]

I'd allow it. Letting the illusion threaten does make logical sense, as the purpose of the flanking bonus is to represent that trying to fight two opponents at the same time is more difficult than fighting one opponent alone. The illusion would serve to distract the target, so it makes sense to me that the illusion could create a flanking bonus. The letter of the rules, as stated, would say this is not the case but logic seems to indicate it is.

 

[dcollins]

I'll point out that there is precedent that "illusions" count as "creatures" for rules such as spell-targeting, Cleave, etc., in the FAQ and related official interpretations.

 

[Zoatebix]

Despite my love for the RAW, I'd probably allow it. And if someone wanted to "disbelive" an orc to deny its buddy a flanking bonus, then I'd rule the orc strikes him as a invisible attacker.

 

[Ryltar]

If you start to allow this, then you get into all sorts of other trouble: if an illusion can cause a flanking condition, why can't sounds (e.g. of a sword slicing through the air, as per a low level bard/sorc spell)? What kind of illusions can set up flanking (only those with sound, or those without it)?

The RAW are flawed in this regard. But I can't remember any takes on this subject that would solve the problem - 3rd party products usually don't change things like that. If it is a big problem for your players to accept the RAW, well, then you'll have to come up with a paper's worth of pages on that subject to "fix" it.

 

[sullivan]

If you start to allow this, then you get into all sorts of other trouble: if an illusion can cause a flanking condition,

Yes, illusions are difficult to adjudicate. This certainly isn't new to v3.x.

why can't sounds (e.g. of a sword slicing through the air, as per a low level bard/sorc spell)? What kind of illusions can set up flanking (only those with sound, or those without it)?

This is a problem how? Certainly it requires you to think out this stuff clearly and make judgements. But such is the nature of areas where the SRD is poorly explained. If you are thinking of this from a balance POV, then what of a summoned Celestial Badger creating a flank on a Dragon Turtle? That doesn't even allow a save.

The RAW are flawed in this regard. But I can't remember any takes on this subject that would solve the problem - 3rd party products usually don't change things like that. If it is a big problem for your players to accept the RAW, well, then you'll have to come up with a paper's worth of pages on that subject to "fix" it.

Then we agree? Illusions are a subject worthy of a paper's worth of material. A paper's worth that has yet to be written.

 

[Keith]

Well, I think other people find it an odd issue, as I do, so that is some comfort. There seem to be two quite clear concepts, and they don’t really contradict each other, in my view.

The first concept is that the rules are very clear that it is the presence of an ally in the right place that provides a flanking bonus, and the perception of the foe is irrelevant. This seems to me to essentially be true.

The second concept is that the rule is terribly counter-intuitive, and should be adjusted slightly so that the foe’s perception of two allies (as with an illusion) grants a flanking bonus, while the mere presence of two allies does not (hence the invisible non-flanker). I think this position is also a pretty sound one...

The ROTG article, part three on sneak attacks, clearly took position two, in the process seeming to imply that it was quoting the rules, rather than creating a slightly different one. The suggested change, by the way, was:

“You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked.”

This is referred to as though it were already part of the rules (which I don’t think is supportable), unlike the section in part four that was clearly labeled as a “Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You”.

So, I think that by the rules, no flanking illusions, and flanking invisibles. With a little logic massaging, probably the opposite, but probably not by the rules (despite the ROTG endorsement). It kind of seems like something the game might have included a sentence on, to me. Thanks for the posts, they are all really interesting!

 

[Remathilis]

There is a specific spell in Complete Warrior designed to do just this, so I would rule that a regular illusion could, but with a major bonus to the flanked creature's will save...

The spell is called phantom threat (illusion/phant, mind affect) Brd1, Hexblade 1. Page 118 of CW.