Can illusions be used to provide a flanking bonus?

[AuraSeer]

First: An illusion does not threaten an area.

I'm not so sure about that. You threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack, and nothing prevents a figment from attacking. It can't actually do damage, but doing damage isn't required. (The Tarrasque can be flanked by two anemic goblins wielding breadsticks; they can't harm him, but they still threaten his space.)

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm not so sure about that. You threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack, and nothing prevents a figment from attacking. It can't actually do damage, but doing damage isn't required. (The Tarrasque can be flanked by two anemic goblins wielding breadsticks; they can't harm him, but they still threaten his space.)

It's not a creature. It can't take an attack action. It can just be made to appear as though it is doing so.

 

[two]

Two Blind Men Discuss Torture

I tell you, messing around with the simple clear RAW causes problems, and problems, and problems...

The suggestion as quoted from the ROTG article:

"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.”

Let's say you have a blind creature without blindsight and a blind creature with blindsight. They are Blind#1 and Blind#2.

The PC's come across Blind#1 and Blind#2 torturing a baby, or something.

Scenario 1:

PC's attack immediately, win initiative, and player 1 and player 2 surround Blind#1. Since Blind#1 is flatfooted he can be sneak attacked by player1 and player2. They do so, but both miss; if only they could have flanked Blind#1, both attacks would have hit (they both missed by 1).

Scenario 2:

PC's attack immediately, win initiative, and player 1 and player 2 surround Blind#2. Since Blind#2 is flatfooted he can be sneak attacked by player1 and player2. They do so, and both hit -- the +2 flanking bonus was the difference. Blind#2 has blindsight thus is aware of the enemies and can be flanked.

The problem?

Blind#2 is PENALIZED for having blindsight/being aware of the enemy!!! It is literally an advantage to be completely blind!

Now, that just ain't right.

This is just one of many "strange and counter-intuitive" scenarios you can come up with when mucking around with flanking.

I'd just suggest play it by the RAW. Illusions are not creatures, can't attack, can't threaten, can't flank. An illusionary tiger might act like it is attacking. I might act like I'm a billionaire. Acting and doing are different. An illusionary tiger literally can't attack; it can just act like it is attacking. That's it. You can believe it's real or not; it doesn't matter. The tiger simply can't attack as the RAW defines an attack..

 

[Epametheus]

You forgot that the attackers get a +2 to hit Blind #1 because he is blind, which is every bit as good as the flanking bonus that they would have gotten against him if he had Blindsight.

It'd make sense for a believed illusion to be able to flank; the fact that an illusion can't even do that much by the RAW is pretty lame.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'd allow it - it's a creative use of the spell. If it got out of hand then maybe I'd crack down, but it seems reasonable to me. Illusionists have enough difficulties as it is so this seems okay. By the RAW, it's probably not allowed.

 

[sullivan]

The problem?

Blind#2 is PENALIZED for having blindsight/being aware of the enemy!!! It is literally an advantage to be completely blind!

EDIT: Actually it's a push because the blind defender has -2 to his AC. I missed the Blindfight feat, however see my next post for a discusion of that.

Besides this isn't a RAW vs. non-RAW situation. First it would seem now that the RAW is quite open. Secondly the wierdness you mistakenly thought existed really does exist elsewhere. For example if I am attacking a target with 4 Mirror Images up I'm better off to close my eyes and swing blindly in the square in question. If I hit the AC with my eyes closed I have a 50/50 chance of landing the shot. If I have my eyes open it's the same AC but I only have a 20% chance of landing the shot. The trade-off is I don't destroy one of the Mirror Images if I miss with my eyes shut, but if the target has a relatively small number of hit points or I'm trying to disrupt a spell that's a trade-off worth taking.

I'd just suggest play it by the RAW. Illusions are not creatures, can't attack, can't threaten, can't flank. An illusionary tiger might act like it is attacking. I might act like I'm a billionaire. Acting and doing are different. An illusionary tiger literally can't attack; it can just act like it is attacking. That's it. You can believe it's real or not; it doesn't matter. The tiger simply can't attack as the RAW defines an attack..

Actually someone just above gave a RAW example of an attacking illusion causing a flank.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You forgot that the attackers get a +2 to hit Blind #1 because he is blind, which is every bit as good as the flanking bonus that they would have gotten against him if he had Blindsight.

Unless he's got the Blind-fight feat. He can't see, so they can't flank, but he doesn't lose his AC.

It's the problem we've noted about Skip's unsupported ruling from the beginning.

A barbarian with Improved Uncanny Dodge can't be flanked, except by a rogue 4 levels higher.

So let's say he's flanked by two Rogues four levels higher, who can therefore both Sneak Attack him. His response? He closes his eyes. They still get their +2, effectively, since he's blind. But now they can't sneak attack, since Uncanny Dodge means he retains his Dex bonus against opponents he can't see, and according to Skip, you can only flank someone if they can see your partner.

And on his turn? Why, he opens his eyes, makes his full attack, and then closes them again...

-Hyp.

 

[sullivan]

Unless he's got the Blind-fight feat. He can't see, so they can't flank, but he doesn't lose his AC.

I missed you mentioning that feat. But that also holds The Answer™. See below.

It's the problem we've noted about Skip's unsupported ruling from the beginning.

A barbarian with Improved Uncanny Dodge can't be flanked, except by a rogue 4 levels higher.

So let's say he's flanked by two Rogues four levels higher, who can therefore both Sneak Attack him. His response? He closes his eyes. They still get their +2, effectively, since he's blind. But now they can't sneak attack, since Uncanny Dodge means he retains his Dex bonus against opponents he can't see, and according to Skip, you can only flank someone if they can see your partner.

And on his turn? Why, he opens his eyes, makes his full attack, and then closes them again...

-Hyp.

Here you can make a distinction of whether or not they are aware of the flank. Closing you eyes does not make you unaware of the flank that you just saw before closing you eyes. (see my questions from the original thread hijack I linked above) Likewise with Blindfight you are aware that they are there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here you can make a distinction of whether or not they are aware of the flank. Closing you eyes does not make you unaware of the flank that you just saw before closing you eyes. (see my questions from the original thread hijack I linked above) Likewise with Blindfight you are aware that they are there.

"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. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked."

You can't see the ally. You don't have Blindsight.

"Being aware" isn't Skip's ruling. "Seeing" is Skip's ruling. Blind-Fight doesn't let you see - you don't know which square someone's in, you still have a miss chance (though a lesser one) when attacking, etc, etc.

For example if I am attacking a target with 4 Mirror Images up I'm better off to close my eyes and swing blindly in the square in question.

Of course, per the description of the spell in the PHB, the images can be up to 5 feet away - which can put each image in a different square.

Again, the FAQ ruling causes problems, when it says to consider them all being in the same square. Having every image in a separate square is perfectly valid by the spell text.

-Hyp.

 

[sullivan]

"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. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked."

You can't see the ally. You don't have Blindsight.

"Being aware" isn't Skip's ruling. "Seeing" is Skip's ruling. Blind-Fight doesn't let you see - you don't know which square someone's in, you still have a miss chance (though a lesser one) when attacking, etc, etc.

Well that is separate, but related issue from Illusions flanking. However seeing isn't the gist of his ruling at all, it is sensing. Blind-fighting allows you to sense enough to fully defend yourself, and fight nearly effectively as with partial concealment (25% chance to miss as opposed to 20%). After that it is my suggested extension from sensing to awareness guideline to clean up some of the muckiness and other oddities that can pop up (like intentionally closing your eyes). I'm just trying to clean up his line of thought that isn't fully developed. Remember that paper's worth of hashing out? That is sometimes the problem with the semi-offical blurbs, and is very likely the reason that this and many other illusion related issues weren't addressed explicitly in the core rules. Brevity.

Of course, per the description of the spell in the PHB, the images can be up to 5 feet away - which can put each image in a different square.

Again, the FAQ ruling causes problems, when it says to consider them all being in the same square. Having every image in a separate square is perfectly valid by the spell text.

-Hyp.

You think laying down some guidelines for illusion situations that the rules don't directly address is bad? Not treating them as being in the same 5' square causes much, much skull imploding to follow due to AoO, AoE spells, reach, etc. You are free to try though.