Can illusions be used to provide a flanking bonus?

[Hypersmurf]

However seeing isn't the gist of his ruling at all, it is sensing.

...

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.

But even if you accept Skip's unsupported ruling as official, there's no 'sensing gist'. It's seeing (with the addendum that Blindsight counts as seeing).

Extensions and cleaning up fall under 'house rules'.

-Hyp.

 

[sullivan]

But even if you accept Skip's unsupported ruling as official, there's no 'sensing gist'. It's seeing (with the addendum that Blindsight counts as seeing).

Extensions and cleaning up fall under 'house rules'.

-Hyp.

Does writing it this way help you then: Blind-fight allows you to partially "see" your melee attacker and targets, reducing your penalties from total concealment to [roughly] partial concealment.

Call it a house rule if you will, but it's a "soft" house rule. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the rules, even including the current supplimental books and errata, etc. are smaller than the Encyclopidia Britanica, so you (as DM) are going to have to fill in the blanks at times.

P.S. I still came up with a worse example in the rules than you did. Given that "all within 5' of each other" can always fit into a square, if you want it to, just as you can always fight a PC into a square, what is your proposed solution to Mirror Image quandry?

 

[ARandomGod]

RAW - No.

Illusions aren't creatures, can't harm, don't threaten, and therefor can't flank.

Note: If you allow illusions to flank everyone around the illusion who might be threatened gets a saving throw every round as they are interacting with it.

RAW yes, illusions affect your state of mind, and flanking is about state of mind.

Note: Anytime anyone interacts with an illusion, that person gets a save. And being "flanked" by one is definitly interacting.

And more, of course. Illusions are left almost entirely up the the GM. Something like this is definitely what an illusion is meant to be used for. There are some GM's who just don't like illusions, don't like you, or don't really have imaginations. Now, while the latter would likely fail his own save vs. illusion and be flanked, you have to realize that you can't actually cast the spell on him, and therefore he's immune. Sad but true. O_O

^_^

For example:

The rules are exceptionally clear on this subject. They just don't make logical sense.




First: An illusion does not threaten an area.
Second: An illusion is not a character or creature.

A lot of people will just use that reasoning, ignoring the fact that an illusio can be OF a character or creature, and if someone fails his interaction save, he acts completely as if the illusion is. (Of course, one could interpret this as the illusion not giving the bonus, but the "target" of the illusion giving the bonus.)

The problem is that whether or not a creature is flanked has absolutely nothing to do with the perceptions of the creature in question, by the rules.

Also, by an interesting coincidence, if two allies are both invisible, and both move to opposite sides of a creature, and both attackers are unaware of each other AND the creature is unaware of either of them, they still get their flanking bonus.

edit: You also still get your flanking bonus if the creature you're attacking is helpless or asleep.

It makes absolutely no sense.

It's the way it is.

There have been debates about the invisibility thing. It's not so clear a ruling either.
But basically, you have to ask your GM if he believes in illusions, and if he says no, you have to ask him what, exactly, is he doing with those dice. I mean, isn't the entire game a form of illusion?

But, in reality, you should try not to be quite so sarcastic to your actual GM. He controlls illusionary meteors with a will save DC of infinity. That's 10k d100 damage.

 

[atom crash]

Here's a nice compromise:

Perhaps the illusion in a flanking position isn't exactly flanking, but as long as the opponent believes it is real then the character in question would get a +2 bonus to attack for favorable circumstances.

(I really love using the +2 bonus for favorable circumstances/-2 penalty for unfavorable circumstances. It solves so many sticky situations.)

 

[Keith]

Sneak attacks are the main reason I am curious about this topic; without those, I would just allow the +2 and move on. However the ability of a rogue to sneak attack anytime he or she can successfully have an illusion move into flanking position could prove pretty powerful, I think. It is harder to just allow that when in doubt, as it might shift the class balance slightly. A rogue who can create a few low level illusions can suddenly become essentially a self-flanking machine of destruction...

So, a circumstance bonus that was not flanking does seem like a nice, low-impact solution. I don’t see it in the rules anymore than the “only flanking when you are visible” idea, but I do like it.
Of course, if there is a player who has decided to build the self-flanking rogue character, they are going to have another take on the topic, I’m guessing...

 

[atom crash]

Sneak attacks are the main reason I am curious about this topic; without those, I would just allow the +2 and move on. However the ability of a rogue to sneak attack anytime he or she can successfully have an illusion move into flanking position could prove pretty powerful, I think. It is harder to just allow that when in doubt, as it might shift the class balance slightly. A rogue who can create a few low level illusions can suddenly become essentially a self-flanking machine of destruction...

Yeah, the circumstance modifier solution totally hoses a rogue's potential to sneak attack with the help of a flanking illusion. But those low-level illusions would most likely have a low save DC. Your theoretical rogue with minor spellcasting ability would be better off using other resources (perhaps grease?) to attempt to create situations for sneak attack damage.

Also, silent image has a duration time of concentration, minor image is concentration +2 rounds, so the spellcasting rogue would have difficulty creating an illusion he could use to flank and thus sneak attack anyway.

 

[Deset Gled]

RAW yes, illusions affect your state of mind, and flanking is about state of mind.

This is actually incorrect. Flanking, according to the text, has nothing to do with state of mind. It is a condition that arises when two creatures threaten another creature at once. Flanking has nothing to do with what the flanked creature is thinking.

The problem with this is that everybody's conceptualization of flanking takes into acount state of mind, even though the game text doesn't. It's a gap between mechanics and modeling, and is exactly why discussions like this come up.

The strict by-the-book ruling has to be that an illusion can't flank because it can't threaten. Ruling differently for gameplay is certainly acceptable, but it is not, as you say, RAW.

 

[ARandomGod]

This is actually incorrect. Flanking, according to the text, has nothing to do with state of mind. It is a condition that arises when two creatures threaten another creature at once. Flanking has nothing to do with what the flanked creature is thinking.

The problem with this is that everybody's conceptualization of flanking takes into acount state of mind, even though the game text doesn't. It's a gap between mechanics and modeling, and is exactly why discussions like this come up.

Well, unless you make your save vs. illusion, as far as game mechanics are concerned, that's a real creature. Sure, and illusion can't flank. But a creature can. And if you fail your save it's a creature in every way that doesn't include touching you. Hence a flanking bonus.

The strict by-the-book ruling has to be that an illusion can't flank because it can't threaten. Ruling differently for gameplay is certainly acceptable, but it is not, as you say, RAW.

I'm pretty sure it is RAW.

Of course, you can't stick completely by RAW, or you'll get some pretty silly rules. Like, for instance, you don't need the "precise shot" feat if you're chaotic. You only get the -4 penalty if the opponent is engaged in melee combat with someone you care not to hit. Simply declare them ALL enemies. You're chaotic, you can do that, and switch back after combat. No need to waste a feat.

Or, also from the online SRD:

Hide:
You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

Notice that you get a penalty for moving at more than half speed but less than full speed. There's no penalty for moving at full speed, however. As long as you're not attacking, running, or charging.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does writing it this way help you then: Blind-fight allows you to partially "see" your melee attacker and targets.

No, it doesn't.

As long as they don't actually hit me, I don't even know what square my opponent is in.

P.S. I still came up with a worse example in the rules than you did. Given that "all within 5' of each other" can always fit into a square, if you want it to, just as you can always fight a PC into a square, what is your proposed solution to Mirror Image quandry?

The DM would let the PC know which squares he can see images in. There might be more than one in each square, but they're certainly not all limited to one square.

If the PC closes his eyes, he picks a square and attacks, just as he does whenever he attacks while blind. If the square he chooses has the caster, he's got a 50% miss chance. If it doesn't, he's got a 100% miss chance.

If the DM decides that in that particular round, all the images are in the caster's square, the choice of square is easy. If he decides they're clustered through four squares, it's harder. If he decides they're spread through nine, it's harder still.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You only get the -4 penalty if the opponent is engaged in melee combat with someone you care not to hit. Simply declare them ALL enemies. You're chaotic, you can do that, and switch back after combat. No need to waste a feat.

Well, no, it's if he's engaged in melee with a friendly character.

It could be argued that whether or not someone is friendly is their decision, not yours.

You can declare that you are not friendly to them, but you have no choice over whether or not they are friendly to you.

-Hyp.