Flanking Illusions?

[Particle_Man]

Besides, the shadowdancer has that shadow buddy to provide flanking.

I am getting more and more convinced to house rule this puppy. So that IMC illusions could provide a flanking bonus and invisible creatures would not provide a flanking bonus (but could be provided one).

 

[gamecat]

I figured as much.

FranktheDM makes a good point, one I agree with. How could you be splitting your defensive attention between what you can and can't see?

 

[backbeat]

I agree with the idea that what matters is the perception of the flankee. I would argue an invisible non-attacking creature should not provide flanking. By the same logic, a believed-to-be-real illusionary monster would, provided the caster is making it appear to swing and miss, and recoil from "damage" it takes. (ie maintaining concentration)

I would however say that a melee fighter with Improved Invisibility could be used as your flanker. The flankee knows he is there, because he is attacking, so he would have to split his attention. If I recall, attacking while improved invisible does give away at least a rough idea of your location.

From the rules posts I've seen this is not the way the text is writen though. I vote for a house rule.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The entire school of illusion is dependent upon perception, despite clunky rules language that doesn't take that into account.

Thus, HR or no, I'd allow flanking bonuses to arise from illusory opponents, invisible opponents who are actively attacking, but not invisible opponents who are not attacking.

 

[lukelightning]

If I recall, attacking while improved invisible does give away at least a rough idea of your location.

In my experience the "rough idea" comes in the form of 4d6 sneak attacks from poisoned rapiers.