Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 313640" data-attributes="member: 2011">Fair enough? As if the word sophistry is not an insult? So, you trade one insult for another. First I am obtuse, then I am using sophistry. Hmmmm.Err, illusions are about perceptions and are not handled well by the actuality interpretation of a lot of the rules. That's why they might be considered a special case by some DMs.I have no doubt about it. The designers did not intend to have Mirror Image result in a flank. As such, they did not even consider to phrase the definitions of flanking and threatening to take into account illusions.But, the spell description does allow an opponent to be surrounded by the images. And, as such, the opponent does not know which are real and which are not. Hence, he has to defend as if they are all real since he does not know which ones to ignore. You get the flanking bonus not because there are two characters on either side of an opponent, but because he has to change his defensive pattern to defend properly against both. Literally looking at the rules and not the rationale for the rules is not always best.For example, when a character has two flanking opponents, nothing in the rules prevents him from ignoring one opponent completely (maybe he believes that one is an illusion for some reason, or maybe he believes one isn‘t a real threat) and concentrating on the other as if that one were the only opponent. Would you still be so literally rules minded to give both opponents a +2 Flank bonus in all cases? Or, would you sometimes give the one he is concentrating on no bonus and the one he is totally ignoring a Flank bonus and a Flat Footed consideration (i.e. he loses dex and dodge bonuses to him and cannot AoO him for moving or casting a spell)? It’s a tough call. Doing the latter would make Summon spells (and they are already pretty wimpy and should be house ruled) and Rogue sneak attacks less worthwhile, but doing the former prevents player innovation.So, that’s why we have DMs. To adjudicate situations (such as wanting to ignore one opponent) that are not explicitly covered in the rules.Not everyone takes the literal interpretation that you do of the word threatened, especially with regard to illusions since some of us do not think that they even considered the question when they came up with the definitions for threatened and flanking.In fact, I will go so far as to say that you are basically correct. According to a literal reading of the rules, flanking cannot occur. However, illusions is definitely one of the gray areas where it appears that the designers did not take it into consideration and hence, a literal interpretation may not work well for all DMs.A literal reading of the Shield spell resulted in controversy and they ended up putting in an errata.</blockquote>

Verification