Flanking with figments?

[Zaruthustran]

From the "Flanking with mirror image?" thread:

Regarding figments in general: Figments are useless for actually attacking, but I see nothing in the rules that says they can not be used to gain a flanking bonus.

If there is nothing in the rules to deal with whether a figment can provide a flanking bonus, we must figure out whether it makes sense for it to be allowed. A flanking bonus is given because the target is splitting his attention in two directions. If he perceives a threat to be on both sides of him and he is defending himself against threats on both sides, I'd say he should be treated as flanked.

Figments, in general, should be allowed to provide a flanking bonus as long as they are believed.

I brought this up yesterday in the "flanking while invisible" thread. The argument in that thread hinges on whether or not the target's perception matters at all.

So I started this new thread since the issue came up twice in two threads.

The SRD and PHB say that:
"FLANKING
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.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."

"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. "

"Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly."

Figments can't attack, so figments can't threaten, so figments can't flank.

This is perfectly in line with the rules, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I honestly believe that the illusion of a mummy on the other side of me is real, I'm going to devote some of my attention to that mummy, so you (on the other side) get a flank bonus.

But then the FAQ says that invisible creatures can't give a flanking bonus, since the defender doesn't know that the invisible creature is there. This directly contradicts the rules, but makes a whole lot of sense. If I don't know the invisible guy is there, I'm not taking any of my attention off of you, so you don't get a flank bonus.

The rules say that the only requirement for flanking is two entities on either side of the target, both able to make attacks into that target's square. The FAQ implies that the perception of the target is what matters--the target has to believe he is threatened.

Is this worth discussing?

-z, who--despite the rules--in a home game would make illusions able to flank and undetected invisible creatures not able to flank.

 

[melkoriii]

Well for one thing if your foe sees a figment attack and hit him but do no damage he will know its not real.

Also this is more reason to have all images from this spell show in the same square as the caster.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Well for one thing if your foe sees a figment attack and hit him but do no damage he will know its not real.

Yep. Tip for illusionists: always make it so your illusions miss their attacks.

-z

 

[melkoriii]

Yep. Tip for illusionists: always make it so your illusions miss their attacks.

-z

Cant do that with Mirror image if your a meleer though.

 

[KarinsDad]

Figments can't attack, so figments can't threaten, so figments can't flank.

Where in the rules does it state that figments cannot attack?

It states that figments "cannot cause damage to objects or creatures". That is not the same as stating that they cannot attack.

who--despite the rules--in a home game would make illusions able to flank and undetected invisible creatures not able to flank.

I would allow illusions to flank.

However, undetected invisible creatures can flank according to the rules (just not according to the Sage) and according to common sense.

It is their allies who should not be able to flank if the invisible creature is not yet detected.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Where in the rules does it state that figments cannot attack?
It states that figments "cannot cause damage to objects or creatures". That is not the same as stating that they cannot attack.

"Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly."

See the bold section. Also note that an attack requires an action. Figments get no actions/can take no actions. They can move as the illusionist directs, but they themselves can not take actions--they don't exist.

They can't attack.

In order to threaten you must "be able to make an attack." Figments can't make attacks, so figments can't threaten. Since they can't threaten they can't flank.

According to a strict reading of the rules, that is.

-z

 

[Stalker0]

Well for one thing if your foe sees a figment attack and hit him but do no damage he will know its not real.

Also this is more reason to have all images from this spell show in the same square as the caster.

Untrue, most of the time you actually hit the creature, but it bounces off the armor or natural armor of the opponent. So instead of saying "you hit, but did no damage." say, he made a blow that bounced off your armor.

As for flanking, threatening imo is based on the perception of the defender. If the defender considers you a threat, you divert his attention, so figments can flank. Just as invisible creatures don't help with flanking bonuses because the defender can't percieve them as threatening.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also note that an attack requires an action. Figments get no actions/can take no actions. They can move as the illusionist directs, but they themselves can not take actions--they don't exist.

They can't attack.

You are contradicting yourself.

You state that they can move (at the behest of the illusionist).

Movement is an action.

You state that they cannot attack (not even at the behest of the illusionist).

Attacking is an action.

Either they can do actions, or they cannot. What is the difference between moving their body and moving a sword in their hand?

Personally, I think they can do anything. They just will not be successful at most things they attempt because they cannot directly affect things. But, that does not mean that they cannot indirectly affect things.

For example, a figment could cast a spell. No spell effects would occur, but that doesn't mean that a powerful enough figment with audible components couldn't fool everyone in the room into thinking that a spell was cast.

That's the intent of illusions: to fool creatures. What good is it if they cannot do that in any way shape or form?

"What can your illusion do?"

"Well, I can move him."

 

[Zaruthustran]

You are contradicting yourself.

You state that they can move (at the behest of the illusionist).

Movement is an action.

You state that they cannot attack (not even at the behest of the illusionist).

Attacking is an action.

Either they can do actions, or they cannot. What is the difference between moving their body and moving a sword in their hand?

KarinsDad, that is weak. The important part is "at the behest of the illusionist."

If a marionnette moves because I am pulling its strings, you would be of the opinion that the marionnette is moving itself. That's silly--the marrionnette isn't moving itself, it is moving as a result of my manipulating its strings.

Same thing with illusions. I probably should have been more clear and said that "Illusions *are moved* by the illusionist."

Question: do illusions have their own initiative score? Can they take actions?

Answer: no and no.

Conclusion: illusions can't attack, illusions can't threaten, illusions can't flank.

Please show me where in the rules it says that figment illusions (silent image, major image) can make attack rolls. Then I'll believe that they can threaten.

Personally, I think they can do anything. They just will not be successful at most things they attempt because they cannot directly affect things. But, that does not mean that they cannot indirectly affect things.

For example, a figment could cast a spell. No spell effects would occur, but that doesn't mean that a powerful enough figment with audible components couldn't fool everyone in the room into thinking that a spell was cast.

No, illusions can't do anything at all. But an illusionist can make them *appear* to do things if he concentrates or takes an action to program them. Read the spell description.

For example, a figment *could not* cast a spell. Illusions don't exist, and have no ability scores, spell components, spells, or spellcasting ability; all these things (most especially "existance" are needed for spellcasting.

But on the illusionists turn, the illusionist can direct the illusion to appear to cast a spell. It could, as you say, fool everyone in the room into thinking that a spell was cast.

That's the intent of illusions: to fool creatures. What good is it if they cannot do that in any way shape or form?

"What can your illusion do?"

"Well, I can move him."

They can still fool people just fine.

"What can your illusion do?"

"I can make it appear to do whatever I want."

-z

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly."

See the bold section. Also note that an attack requires an action. Figments get no actions/can take no actions. They can move as the illusionist directs, but they themselves can not take actions--they don't exist.

They can't attack.

In order to threaten you must "be able to make an attack." Figments can't make attacks, so figments can't threaten. Since they can't threaten they can't flank.

According to a strict reading of the rules, that is.

-z

It does however say they are useful for CONFOUNDING OR DELAYING foes, which could very easily be intrepreted as "distracting enough to give someone else a +2 to hit them". In addition, you don't actually have to attack someone to provide a flanking bonus. You could also just use a Full Defense to protect yourself but still provide a flank.

Thats what I would picture the illusion doing. Dancing around and feinting every so often at a stab, but not actually swinging and hitting the person. The very act of providing the flank, however, would count as the illusion interacting with the flankee, so I would give them a Will save every round to figure out whats going on.

DS