Flanking with figments?

[Zaruthustran]

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".

What are you quoting? Please provide page numbers or an SRD section. My references are "flank" on page 308 and "threaten" on page 314 of the 3.5 PHB (glossary section).

Nowhere in the rules does it say that flanking is dependent on "distraction." The only requirement for flanking is that the flanker must threaten. The rule for threaten requires that the threatener be "able to make an attack".

Illusions can't attack. Therefore they can't threaten. Therefore they can't flank.

According to the rules, that is. I'd houserule this in my home game--illusions *should* be able to flank. But they can't, if you're strictly reading the rules (that's what this forum is for).

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.

Probably true, but irrelevant when discussing illusions.

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

Me too. That's why I'd houserule that illusions can flank.

-z

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Everything you state here is true.

Illusions cannot be real creatures. Nobody is claiming that they can be. Illusions do not have ability scores, or the capability to make attack rolls (note the difference between making attack rolls and making attacks).

They cannot do the metagaming mechanics that an actually character can (make saving throws, roll to attack, actually cast a spell).

They can, however, PRETEND to do all of these.

Hence, they can appear to have actions and the misperception of actual "real characters" can influence the situation.

The question is: Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at them actually physically affecting something else (with the exception of light and sound, they can affect those, otherwise they would all be transparent and totally useless).

I do not draw the line at influence. They can influence character behavior, merely based on their presence.

An illusion of a wall will be actually considered to be real until proven otherwise.

An illusion of an attacking Orc will be actually considered to be real (and threatening) until proven otherwise.

Hence, all of the game mechanic rules which apply to what we call reality in the game will apply. Threaten, flank, concealment, etc.

If the illusionary Orc stands in a doorway, he will give concealment to those standing behind him and even though arrows could pass through him, those behind him get a concealment chance to be missed.


The fact is that illusions must be able to affect the game, otherwise they are a total waste.


When it comes to flanking, the entire reason flanking is in the game is to illustrate the concept that a character who is surrounded by opponents is (typically, feats can change that) at a disadvantage in combat.

If you rule that illusions cannot flank, then by default you are ruling that a defender is not at a disadvantage due to illusionary opponents surrounding him and hence that the illusions are not perceived as real by that defender. He automatically saves against them if they are incapable of giving flank to a real character attacking that defender.

Bottom line.


As I posted on the flanking with mirror image thread, there are many situations where I would take common sense GM rulings over a literal book rule:

A B V
A B W
A B X
A B Y
A B Z

A and B are fighting. V, W, X, Y, and Z are allies of A.

V is visible. Does A get flank?
W is invisible, but neither A nor B knows he exists. Does A get flank?
X is invisible, but both A and B knows he exists. Does A get flank?
Y is an illusion, but both A and B think he's real. Does A get flank?
Z is an ugly threatening looking creature which is incapable of doing a melee attack, but neither A nor B know that. Does A get flank?

The literal book answers to these 5 examples are: yes, yes, yes, no, and no.
The common sense answers to these 5 examples are: yes, no, yes, yes, and yes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The literal book answers to these 5 examples are: yes, yes, yes, no, and no.
The common sense answers to these 5 examples are: yes, no, yes, yes, and yes.

Don't forget the Sage answers - yes, no, no, no, no.

 

[Zaruthustran]

The question is: Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line where you draw the line. I go with the "common sense" answers. The book, as you point out, goes with the "literal book" answers.

But where I chose to draw the line is not the question. Not in this forum, anyway. This is the rules forum, so I'm attempting to answer the question with only the literal rules--not common sense or personal houserule opinion.

Bottom line is that you and I handle illusions in our home games the exact same way--but the rules handle it a different way.

-z

 

[FrankTrollman]

Why should the target's perception matter at all?

Flanking as actually described in the book is all about a positional advantage gained from attacking from a direction that leads directly into the melee weapons of another enemy of your target. Maybe it is as simple as the additional chance of pushing your foe onto a spear if you don't actually penetrate armor.

Who cares? The rules say that figments cannot flank. I can provide perfectly good "common sense" answers for why that might occur. So why would "common sense" lead us to play some other way than the books actually say?

Flanking is not described in detail from a "real world" standpoint. It is described in great detail from a "game mechanical" standpoint. The job of the DM, thus, is to describe the "real world" element in a manner consistent with the rules. Come to think of it - that is always the DM's job in all cases - so I truly don't see why there is any problem here.

---

Note that figment spells are still extremely powerful. Of the 4 examples in the PHB of "a creature, force, or object" - one of the examples is "several orcs fighting" - so you can in fact make large groups of warriors to draw fire (I prefer archers). If your DM won't go for that - just make the extremely rare "Multiple Orc Beast" which happens to look exactly like a dozen Orcish Warriors with bows connected by invisible and odorless microfiliments (remembering that figments don't have to produce real things).

Also fun is the "smoke in eyes" trick. You can put opaque clouds into the face of all your enemies - and everyone who fails a Will Save is blinded while your whole team smacks on them.

Remember also that Skeletons and other mindless things do not normally walk into walls or search areas unless ordered to do so - so you can put all the zombies into "stone boxes" and they don't even get a save to avoid standing around like shut down toys until your fighter walks up and kills them.

So I'm just not crying for your inability to flank with figments. You can do a lot of awesome stuff, and I still think that Silent Image is hands down the best first level spell. So you can't flank - you can still give effective miss chances to all of your enemies and blind a bunch of your enemies on top of that with a single casting. It can turn the tide of battle even at high level, and it's a first level spell - so I just don't see a game mechanical imperitive to change it.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

Why should the target's perception matter at all?

Because there are scenarios where the "book rules" are illogical. For example:

A B X

If X is invisible and A and B are unaware of him, A still gets flank according to the rules.

If X is a figment and A and B are aware of him, but are unaware that he is a figment, than A does not get flank according to the rules.

This is totally nonsensical. Someone who appears to be a threat is totally ignored and someone who is not known changes the course of the battle.

Kind of like the Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle for fantasy.

Hence, the reason to add a "house rule" to resolve the issues.

Flanking as actually described in the book is all about a positional advantage gained from attacking from a direction that leads directly into the melee weapons of another enemy of your target. Maybe it is as simple as the additional chance of pushing your foe onto a spear if you don't actually penetrate armor.

The problem with this rationale for why flank works is that it is still nonsensical for the Invisible Unknown Flanking character giving flank bonus to his ally, even though nobody knows he is there.

That's the problem with nonsensical rules. You cannot explain them away.

Who cares? The rules say that figments cannot flank. I can provide perfectly good "common sense" answers for why that might occur. So why would "common sense" lead us to play some other way than the books actually say?

Actually, the rules imply that figments cannot flank, they do not clearly state it. With one interpretation, you can say that they do. With a different interpretation, you can say that they do not.

I'm sure you can contrive a "common sense answer". But, would it correspond to what makes sense with regard to how the rest of the game is played, or would it be contrived answer more based on given mechanics than on common sense?

 

[FrankTrollman]

Because there are scenarios where the "book rules" are illogical. For example:

A B X

If X is invisible and A and B are unaware of him, A still gets flank according to the rules.

If X is a figment and A and B are aware of him, but are unaware that he is a figment, than A does not get flank according to the rules.

This is totally nonsensical. Someone who appears to be a threat is totally ignored and someone who is not known changes the course of the battle.

I don't see the illogic in that instance. I really don't. The rules define flanking as the interaction of real combatants - not as the impressions of the target of the attack. You may want to describe the flanking bonus as a division of attention - but the rules don't say that!

You are making up a "special effect" for the flanking bonus which is inconsistent with the rules - and then getting your panties in a knot because the rules are inconsistent with your explanation. You might as well start describing Lightning Bolts as:

"It's an improvement of Shocking Grasp, sending a powerful arc of electricity between your hands generating a plasma which is then hurled the length of the effect."

....and then decrying the fact that Lightning Bolts don't do fire damage. It's a vapid argument.

The rules say that flanking is the bonus gleaned from a real combatant on the other side of your enemy. If you feel the need to explain that in descriptive text in such a way that it doesn't make sense - your explanation is wrong. The rules on this are fine.

-Frank

 

[youspoonybard]

For those who say that illusions can attack, I'm just curious.

What's the Attack Bonus of an illusory Fighter? Rogue? Sorceror?

 

[Norfleet]

For those who say that illusions can attack, I'm just curious.

What's the Attack Bonus of an illusory Fighter? Rogue? Sorceror?

Whatever the caster wishes it to be.

The real problem with illusionary flanking is that something which NEVER HITS is terribly unthreatening, and an illusion which hits, but leaves the target feeling unhit, is quickly identified as a fake.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see the illogic in that instance. I really don't.

That is because you are hide bound to the rules and pretend to not see the illogic.

Something that is visible and appears threatening does not give the flank bonus.

Something that is invisible and not known does give the flank bonus.

All because the rules say so, not because it makes sense.

Come on Frank. Don't be purposely obtuse.