Can illusions be used to provide a flanking bonus?

[sullivan]

No, it doesn't.

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

Roughly, yes it's sensing, or can be treated as sensing. Even if you don't get it by the attack your AC is affected. Saying you didn't sense anything is similar to saying you weren't wearing armor or didn't have a deflection bonus unless you got hit. There are other ways to interpret the source of the Blind-fight feat benefits, but this works fine and solves the issue you are raising.

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.

So what of PCs, are they limited to one square? That's not a solution, that's a starting point, a starting point you didn't follow out from very well (much as Skip didn't when he used the word "see"). You are missing a MUCH longer list of items than your relatively limited occurance example you lauded. For example:
Which squares do the images reside in. Random? If not random, what are the rules?
What happens if all the square around the Mirrored character are occupied?
What of the significantly increased power of the spell this creates regarding AoE spells/powers when the images are spread over multiple square?
The increased power it has over blocking movement by threat of AoO?
Are others allowed to move into a square occupied by only illusionary replicas? If so then what happens? If not, why not?

EDIT: Ooo, I should have also included flanking created by the figments that are not in the square. We have determined that by RAW illusions can create flanks. Well at least phatasm illusions can, and by extension flanks can be created by the defender's state of mind. What we are discussing right now whether flanks can be negated by the defenders state of mind.

That's for starters. You have gone to a very bad place, a place occupied by facing rules and incorporating distances between 5' and 0'. Trying to unabstract the D&D combat grid.

 

[ThirdWizard]

We have determined that by RAW illusions can create flanks.

I thought we had determined that illusions do not flank. Oppinions may obviously vary.


As for the Mirror Image thing... when we started playing 3.0, we read 5 feet as 5 feet. It wasn't until the FAQ that I first saw this... interprietation... that they all had to be in the same square. I mean it says in the text "each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you." If a figment is 5' away from you, and another figment 5' away from that figment (10' away from you) then its going to be in different squares! Adjudicate as you see fit.

This is really a pet peeve of mine because the spell says specifically that this is possible. People who change it so that they all have to be in the same square are House Ruling it. I don't even see how there's room for discussion on this matter, but if there's anything at all I've learned here at ENWorld is that no rule goes unchallenged.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Roughly, yes it's sensing, or can be treated as sensing.

But the Blind-Fight feat gives no information as to what square the opponents are in. For all you know, they could be two opponents standing side by side. If, as you argue, flanking relies on perception, then you must be able to perceive that you are flanked! And Blind-Fight doesn't let you do it.

Similarly, if you are blind, and you are struck by two opponents who are directly opposite each other, then you know which squares they are in (since you always know which square an adjacent melee attack that hits originates from). So you know you're flanked... do they now get the bonus? Skip says no - you can't see them.

Which squares do the images reside in. Random? If not random, what are the rules?

It doesn't state that the caster has any control over the placement of images. They separate; they can move through each other. So yes, I'd treat it as random.

What happens if all the square around the Mirrored character are occupied?

They have to stay within five feet of the caster or another figment. If there's nowhere else for them to go, they'd have to be in the caster's square. If there is somewhere else for them to go, they don't have to be.

What of the significantly increased power of the spell this creates regarding AoE spells/powers when the images are spread over multiple square?

What significantly increased power? Increased from what?

The increased power it has over blocking movement by threat of AoO?

Again, increased from what? My position is that the spell itself states that figments must remain within five feet of the caster or another figment. As long as there is another figment legally within five feet, a given figment might be up to forty feet from the caster!

So I don't see "increased power" as being a valid statement. I'd contend that the FAQ interpretation decreases, rather than vice versa.

The FAQ even admits it's not using the written description: "Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies."[/quote]

EDIT: Ooo, I should have also included flanking created by the figments that are not in the square. We have determined that by RAW illusions can create flanks. Well at least phatasm illusions can, and by extension flanks can be created by the defender's state of mind. What we are discussing right now whether flanks can be negated by the defenders state of mind.

I don't agree that illusions can create flanks... except in the specific case of a spell that states that it can.

You can't generalise from that to all illusions. Flanking is caused by a specific condition - you're making a melee attack, and a creature friendly to you and in the right place threatens the same opponent.

Phantom Threat provides a second way in which flanking can be achieved, which may effectively rely on state of mind. But it's unrelated to the normal way of achieiving flanking. It provides neither precedent nor example of the way flanking is attained in the PHB Combat chapter.

Just like Flick of the Wrist or Low Blow cause an opponent to become flat-footed... it doesn't change the fact that 'flat-footed' is normally only applicable at the start of combat.

If I think I'm flanked, but nobody threatens me, my opponents don't get +2 and can't sneak attack... unless I think I'm flanked because of a Phantom Threat spell.

-Hyp.

 

[sullivan]

But the Blind-Fight feat gives no information as to what square the opponents are in. For all you know, they could be two opponents standing side by side. If, as you argue, flanking relies on perception, then you must be able to perceive that you are flanked! And Blind-Fight doesn't let you do it.

Once they attack you become aware. Yes, that's can seem a bit odd that you aren't flanked until attacked. But is what is consistant with you not being flanked until you reasonably think you are.

As for Mirror Image it seems you haven't played with the ruling you are giving. You certainly haven't read the spell description carefully. So rather than have it mushroom here and hijack the thread it should be split off in another thread.

Phantom Threat provides a second way in which flanking can be achieved, which may effectively rely on state of mind.

Correction: which DOES rely on his state of mind.

But it's unrelated to the normal way of achieiving flanking.

...but related to a class of spells that alters how characters/creatures preceive and react to the physical world.

It provides neither precedent nor example of the way flanking is attained in the PHB Combat chapter.

It does provide precedent that the defenders mental mapping of the physical world, and more specifically an illusion based affect on that, can create a flank. It doesn't say that all illusions of a creature flanking must create flanks, but it does suggest that a DM can choose to rule a given illusion does create a flank in a given situation while staying within the letter of the rules, given that the rules in large part cede illusion adjudication to the DM.

Just like Flick of the Wrist or Low Blow cause an opponent to become flat-footed... it doesn't change the fact that 'flat-footed' is normally only applicable at the start of combat.

If I think I'm flanked, but nobody threatens me, my opponents don't get +2 and can't sneak attack... unless I think I'm flanked because of a Phantom Threat spell.

-Hyp.

So you choose to rule. However the RAW also supports in roughly equal measure the DM ruling any given mind effect creating a flank since the creation of a flank can be based on the defender's state of mind. Whether it does for any given spell *shrug* DM disgression. Certainly there is precedent for illusions being treated as creatures for other combat senarios.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Once they attack you become aware.

But what if while you're blind, someone directly north of you hits you (so you know they're directly north) and then takes a 5' step, and then someone else directly south hits you? Does the second person get a +2 bonus on subsequent attacks because you think you're flanked, even though you aren't?

What if the north person didn't take a 5' step, but you guessed he probably would have? Does that mean you don't think you're flanked, even though you are?

Yes, that's can seem a bit odd that you aren't flanked until attacked. But is what is consistant with you not being flanked until you reasonably think you are.

Which, of course, is not the rule Which is why all these oddities are coming up - the FAQ/RotG answer does not follow the rules for flanking.

As for Mirror Image it seems you haven't played with the ruling you are giving. You certainly haven't read the spell description carefully.

Of course I have, in both cases. I have clear mental images of battlemaps showing a bunch of identical figures, each in their own square, representing a MI'd caster - I've certainly played with that ruling. And I've absolutely read the description carefully.

It does provide precedent that the defenders mental mapping of the physical world, and more specifically an illusion based affect on that, can create a flank.

... in the specific case of the Phantom Threat spell.

Certainly there is precedent for illusions being treated as creatures for other combat senarios.

What, like Cleave? Only if one agrees with that FAQ answer as well.

Which I don't

-Hyp.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

Touche

Of course, in that case whenever someone's shooting at you it'd help to slap the guy beside you and declare yourselves friendly to the shooter. You know, you just like the way his arrows look or something. And you just happen to be running towards him at full speed to give him a big greeting hug.

^_^

 

[sullivan]

First, like I said, the MI spell to a different thread. It isn't particularly pertanent to this thread because even as you rule it the situation I describe comes up.

Second, what I'm suggesting to use is "if you reasonably think you are flanked then you are, you reasonably don't think you are flanked then you aren't". Yes can leads to some interesting situations such as an attacker with Haste having the possibility of being able to create both sides of the flank himself on a blind person. *shrug* Being blind sucks, Haste is a powerful spell, and the attacker has to move and give up the Full Attack to do it. If you want Blind-fighting to function because of a different reason *shrug* then yes blind but with Blind-fighting you aren't flanked until hit twice or somehow reasonably think you are flanked (the attackers call out as a Free Action?). Congratulations you have created, more than identified, just one more rule oddity. You win the prize.

Third, the "oddities" you give are coming up because a lot of different things can happen in combat. Frankly I see the problem you have with the senario you described with the rogues and the blind barbarrian has more to do with how the different levels of Uncanny Dodge work, but in the end are a class benefit. If you don't want strange things to happen with the rules you should toss the D&D manuals and forget about playing. Right off the bat having opponents at 2 o'clock, 10 o'clock, and 6 o'clock positions and not being flanked by any of them is one that has perpetuated from before v3 was released. I'm not going to give The Answer™ to the senarios you described because you can yourself. "If they reasonably think they are flanked then they are", if they moved away from then flank then they have reason to believe they broke the flank for the momment unless they think there is another fighter to fill that in. If at times there is an odd benefit for being blind i personally would tend not to worry about it since it'll work out in the end because being blind is such a disadvantage otherwise.

Forth closing your eyes in the middle of battle tends to put you in a percarious situation, especially against an intellegent opponents. Doubly so against a spell caster since you may be giving up your AoO on a Readied action in doing so.

EDIT: P.S. Just got a work call. I'll likely not be able to continue this conversation for some time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Second, what I'm suggesting to use is "if you reasonably think you are flanked then you are, you reasonably don't think you are flanked then you aren't".

Whereas what I'd suggest to use is "When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked."

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

I don't think it works that way. If a player tries to disbelieve an illusion (even if it isn't an illusion but is real), they get a saving throw. So the player would either make their save, and see that the orc is real and react accordingly OR they would fail their save and still believe that the orc is real, again reacting accordingly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think it works that way. If a player tries to disbelieve an illusion (even if it isn't an illusion but is real), they get a saving throw. So the player would either make their save, and see that the orc is real and react accordingly OR they would fail their save and still believe that the orc is real, again reacting accordingly.

Yeah, you don't pretend he's an illusion. You suspect he has a secret gaze attack.

Therefore you turn your back on him, granting him total concealment, under the rules for gaze attacks.

Now you can't see him, so per Skip's ruling, he can't grant his ally a flanking bonus...

-Hyp.